I'm very confused

[Mariami]

Timothy 2:11-14 (NIV): A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Peter 3:5-6 (NIV): For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master.

Numbers 31:14-18 (NIV): Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Judges 21:12-22 (NIV): They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man ... So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared. But there were not enough for all of them ... the elders of the assembly said, "With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? The Benjamite survivors must have heirs," they said," so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out ... But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, to the north of Bethel, and east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and to the south of Lebonah. So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, "Go and hide in the vineyards and watch. When the girls of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, then rush from the vineyards and each of you seize a wife from the girls of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin. When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, "Do us a kindness by helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war ..."

Corinthians 14:34 (NIV): "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says

Paul's famous "wives, submit to your husbands" line in Ephesians 5:23

Judges 19:22-29 (The famous story of the Levite and his concubine, who he coldly sacrificed to a rape gang. Note that slept peacefully while she was being raped and beaten, and when he discovered her dead body, he promptly mutilated it in order to tell the rest of Israel what had happened (you'd think a written message would be more appropriate than desecrating the dead)
While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing.
Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.


Can someone explain it to me?

[Charles Darnay]

What exactly are you confused about. It all seems pretty clear cut. Male dominance - Adam came first, Even is to blame for the Fall, women should be "chaste, obedient and silent" is certainly not the most praised part about Christianity, but it part of the history.

[jgweed]

The obvious explanation for such writing is that it reflected what was then the accepted attitude about the status of women (or, for that matter, slaves).

[dzebra]

I'd need to read more of the stories to be able to elaborate much on the Old Testament places you quoted, so I'll have to get back to you on that part.

The other ones are just places where the writers are explaining that the role of a man is a leader. The women are the helpers. That's the way they were designed. In relation to that, remember that the same person who taught that also taught, "Whoever humbles himself like this child, he will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" and, "The greatest among you shall be your servant."

[Redzeppelin]

What exactly are you confused about. It all seems pretty clear cut. Male dominance - Adam came first, Even is to blame for the Fall, women should be "chaste, obedient and silent" is certainly not the most praised part about Christianity, but it part of the history.

A drastic over-simplification. Adam did come first, Eve came second. Are you implying that things that come first are better than those that come later? Really? Many theologians will say that if man was the crown of creation week, that woman was the final majestic work of God. As well, Eve was fooled by the serpent, but Adam was not and chose to join Eve out of rebellion - his sin, thus, is worse.



Miriami:

You have quoted numerous portions of the Bible without context - and that creates a problem. Not everything you've quoted is supported or condoned by God. I won't deal with them all one by one - I'm short on time. But, I'll deal with the "submission" issue. What you left out was the penultimate text on submission - Ephesians Ch. 5 - here:

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.


22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Note this - vs 21 says "submit to one another" - that means both men and women are to submit. Yes, women are told to defer to a husband's leadership - but look below: men are told to "love" their wives as Christ did - which is sacrificially. In other words, submission on the wife's part is to be matched by a sacrificial love on the husband's part. Think about it: any man who is sacrificially loving his wife will honor her submission - not take advantage of it; as well, any wife honoring her husband will encourage him to be more loving.

If Christianity were about male-dominance, I don't think it would provide this important condition: guys are expected to give too.

[Charles Darnay]

A drastic over-simplification. Adam did come first, Eve came second. Are you implying that things that come first are better than those that come later? Really? Many theologians will say that if man was the crown of creation week, that woman was the final majestic work of God. As well, Eve was fooled by the serpent, but Adam was not and chose to join Eve out of rebellion - his sin, thus, is worse.




The biggest flaw of Internet conversation is that sarcasm is not easy to convey.

My statements expressed above were not that of my opinions but rather my opinions of the church's opinions.....and I'm not saying that sexism classifies Christianity, it is a part of it....as it is a part o many religions and nations throughout history.....this is by no means a justification for it.

[El Viejo]

Mariami,

(My first thought was that your question was rhetorical. Just in case it isn't, here's a reply...)

One more instance to add to your list: Lot offers his daughters to the raging crowd, but there's no record of anyone, his wife, God, or the angels, raising any objection.

There is one clear case where the Bible makes definitive, but contradictory statements, with the apparent message that we're supposed to use our heads and not just blindly apply prescription: Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5. In most cases the contrasting statements are not nearly so easy to find, and simply appear contradictory.

In the case of the man/woman is like Christ/the church comparison, the image is comforting, but fails to mitigate the very strong 'shut up and obey' message.

I had hoped to offer some verses to temper the image of woman-as-lower-being, but I can't recall where I made the notes. There are, however, a couple of women in the bible who operated from positions of power without the benefit of a man to submit to. They are the rare exceptions to the rule, but they're there.

Good luck in your search.

[JBI]

Male Jews pray every morning praising god for not making them a woman. The book is misogynist by our standards clearly. To judge it as thus is to not do it justice however. The world of the Iliad is misogynist as well, and the whole feud is started over the taking of a female prisoner as a sexual slave prize for the king Agamemnon.

These are works of literature, and should be read as thus. Their morality is dated for our standards. They should be read, but with that in mind. Even believers cannot expect an "exact" fundamentalist interpretation to be beneficial to a society 3500/2000 years after.

[Drkshadow03]

Male Jews pray every morning praising god for not making them a woman.

If they're Orthodox maybe they do, but Reform Jews don't and I am pretty sure most Conservative Jews don't either (not sure about that last one, though). No offense, but I don't want you to give the wrong impression of modern Judaism, particularly as the majority in American Jews practice it, to non-Jews.

[jaywalker]

Why can't my Wife believe all this ? She thinks she's better than me ! Just because she can Cook, Knit. beat me at Chess etc. Doesn't mean she's better innit !

[ampoule]

Why can't my Wife believe all this ? She thinks she's better than me ! Just because she can Cook, Knit. beat me at Chess etc. Doesn't mean she's better innit !

Good one, jaywalker. ;)

[Pendragon]

You aren't confused because there are things that you don’t understand, that is just human nature at work, wondering, that's all. If it is any consolation to you, I don't understand the Old Testament episodes you list either. I think Red did a fairly good job of explaining the rest. Women are not second hand persons, but are there to be loved and respected; you can't do that by putting them down. If a woman has her place, so does a man, and it isn't as a slave master, but a husband: Love, honor, and cherish! Why people use the Bible as an excuse for male chauvinism is beyond me.

God Bless

Pen

[ClementOfRome]

amazing and bravo...

i won't quote scripture just to piss everone off here. instead allow me to ask a few questions:

Who was the first person that Jesus revealed himself to?
What gender was that individual?
Who was she commisioned to go Tell?

who were the financial backers of Pauls Ministry?

Why didn't Jesus tell Mary to get back in the Kitchen with martha... where she belonged?

the woman caught in sin... why didn't Jesus cast the first stone?

Why was precilla menioned before aquilla (anyone that has studied ancient text will see the interest in this question)?

Why is God refered to in the hebrew as a 'man' with 'feminine' traits?

why is it that 3/4 of the churches are filled with women?

why was the ratio at the cross 2 to 1 man vs. women?

if the above mentioned were true, why was this not mentioned in ALL NT books, instead of only a couple?

if the text are correct in traditional conservative context, how are women not property?

all those and more, of course. and i realize that some may be a streach.... but you take these quesitons to those text, and you come away with a different approach...

...

don't you think...


you have heard it said... Women must be silent... but i say to you

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Good thing that Quote isn't in the bible or it would make this heated topic look silly... (oops!)

[Equality72521]

Women are not second hand persons, but are there to be loved and respected; you can't do that by putting them down. If a woman has her place, so does a man, and it isn't as a slave master, but a husband: Love, honor, and cherish! Why people use the Bible as an excuse for male chauvinism is beyond me.

God Bless

Pen

I definatley wouldn't think to look to the bible for male chauvinism (sp?). If you look to the book of Esther, I think, I don't even know if she wrote a book, but I've heard her story, I'm pretty sure she did though, but she definately shows the respecting relationship between husband and wife. It's one of my favorite bible stories.....Which is actually odd, considering I don't believe in god.

{I'm not going to lie, I know Esther has a story in the bible, but I'm not sure if she has a book.}

[Drkshadow03]

I definatley wouldn't think to look to the bible for male chauvinism (sp?). If you look to the book of Esther, I think, I don't even know if she wrote a book, but I've heard her story, I'm pretty sure she did though, but she definately shows the respecting relationship between husband and wife. It's one of my favorite bible stories.....Which is actually odd, considering I don't believe in god.

{I'm not going to lie, I know Esther has a story in the bible, but I'm not sure if she has a book.}

The Book of Esther isn't really about equality in a relationship. The Persian King she marries is a imbecile; he is literally too stupid to be her equal. Likewise, she is ridiculously submissive, relying on her beauty and sexual charms to win her favors. Any intelligent deed she does if I remember correctly happens after she obediently obeys Mordecai's directions. The book celebrate Mordecai if anybody.

[Pendragon]

The Book of Esther isn't really about equality in a relationship. The Persian King she marries is a imbecile; he is literally too stupid to be her equal. Likewise, she is ridiculously submissive, relying on her beauty and sexual charms to win her favors. Any intelligent deed she does if I remember correctly happens after she obediently obeys Mordecai's directions. The book celebrate Mordecai if anybody. Not so! Mordecai could do nothing if Esther doesn't listen to him. He would have probably ended up hanged by Haman and the Jewish people in Babylon slain. Esther is central to the story, because she does the work of talking to the King. She goes to the King even though he hasn't sent for her, and she could possibly die for her candor. Think about that!

God Bless

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Equality72521]

All right. Either way, I've learned my lesson. I'll stop even trying to talk about or remember bible stories. It's totally not my specialty!....clearly....oh well....

[Drkshadow03]

Not so! Mordecai could do nothing if Esther doesn't listen to him. He would have probably ended up hanged by Hyman and the Jewish people in Babylon slain. Esther is central to the story, because she does the work of talking to the King. She goes to the King even though he hasn't sent for her, and she could possibly die for her candor. Think about that!


First let's put my response in context to the original post I was responding to.

The original post stated the following: "she definately shows the respecting relationship between husband and wife"

How exactly does the possibility that the king might lop off her head and she is brave enough to face that depicts a respecting relationship between husband and wife? Generally in a relationship of mutual respect one need not worry about their spouse threatening them with death.

I don't disagee that Esther is brave to confront the king, but she only does it after Mordecai tells her she will probably die anyway if Haman's plans come to fruition: "Do not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will escape with your life by being in the king's palace." - Esther 4:13.

Furthermore, Marc Zvi Brettler in his excellent How to Read the Hebrew Bible notes that although "Esther is a model of bravery when she aproaches the king to plead for the Jews . . . On the other hand, Esther does not risk her life on her own initiative, so arguably she is an agent rather than a primary character or hero. The book's true stance is likely revealed in its final verse, from which Esther is missing." She basically takes orders from Mordecai; likewise, the book ends by celebrating Mordecai's greatness (see Book of Esther 10:3).

I'm not trying to denigrate the status of women or even belittle Esther, but I am being factually accurate to what I think the story actually says and doesn't say.

What motivates her to confront the king? Mordecai and his arguments that she will die anyway if she doesn't.

What allows her to persuade the king? Her beauty and sexual appeal.

[Pendragon]

Well, the "lop off the head" business was the rule for anyone for whom the King hadn't specificly sent, Esther included, not just for her. She invites the King to a feast, not to her bed, and brings ] Haman along as well. How is that sexual? The King was furious when ] Haman fell against the couch on which Esther reclined for the feast, accusing him of rape intentions. I don't know about respect in the sense that we would give to the word, but the King loved and respected her more than any other woman, I do believe. This isn't worth fighting about, however. It is this sort of arguments that cause people to break fellowship, and that is where people go wrong. This doesn't send to to heaven or keep you out. So there is plenty of room for either argument!

God Bless

Pen

[jaywalker]

Er-How many women disciples were there ?
How many Women at the Last Supper ?
Nuff said ?

[Chester]

Er-How many women disciples were there ?
How many Women at the Last Supper ?
Nuff said ?
Well that's it then. 2000 years of beautiful tradition down the tubes. More if you consider the Old Testament. Okay, everybody, you heard the man...nothing more to see here...move it along....show's over, folks....

:rolleyes:

[Redzeppelin]

Er-How many women disciples were there ?
How many Women at the Last Supper ?
Nuff said ?

As if these rhetorical questions prove something?

Christ came to Earth during a specific time in Earth's history; we do not know why He chose the time period He did, but we must assume that God's timing is perfect (as we should assume the timing of any omniscient Being to be). As such, Christ came to Earth during a time in history where equality between the sexes was not in existence. That Christ did not choose to "fix" this does not invalidate Christianity; He did not address slavery either, but it was Christians who initiated the beginnings of the end of that terrible insititution. Christ's mission was not to up-end society: it was to show people who God was and how they could personally know Him; how they could be saved from the burden of sin; how they could have eternal life. Christ's mission was focused on these points because His time on Earth was exceedingly short. However, the Bible that God inspired men to write, contains within it the principles that have guided good men and women to fight against injustice and wrong throughout the world.

There are some troubling texts refering to women - that I'll acknowledge; what generally gets overlooked is the revolutionary ways that both Jesus and Paul told society to treat women. Christ attacked the casual way men would divorce/abandon women, reinforcing the life-time bond of marriage; Paul told men that they were to love their wives sacrifically - neither one a mainstream idea in Jewish (or any other culture for that matter) society. Why do those things get skipped over?

There were no "official" female disciples because Jewish culture forbid such a thing. However, the gospels make it clear that Christ had many females followers; as well, it also makes clear that Christ's ministry was largely funded by women - making their contributions essential.

Make sure to take cultural context into consideration - culture is very powerful. Christ challenged the portions of culture that distorted who God was - the rest (slavery, gender equality, etc) He left for us to deal with as His "hands and feet."

[patrickbeverley]

What's to explain? Paul and Moses were raging misogynists, like most men of their respective eras. To his credit, Jesus appears to have bucked the trend by not making any pronouncements about women knowing their place.

[Redzeppelin]

What's to explain? Paul and Moses were raging misogynists, like most men of their respective eras. To his credit, Jesus appears to have bucked the trend by not making any pronouncements about women knowing their place.


Completely wrong and a drastic oversimplification. You cannot condemn an ancient people for not passing our modern ideological "litmus tests." That's the kind of logic that makes people say that Mark Twain's Huck Finn is "racist" because it uses the "n word."

There's no evidence that either Paul or Moses hated women; making such careless overstatements puts the credibility of your argument in clear jeopardy. They held to the cultural values of their time periods - and Paul's teachings by and large benefitted women.

[curlyqlink]

Can someone explain it to me?

To me, the explanation is that the Bible was written and compiled in ages that were unquestioningly patriarchal. They didn't know any better. As a document of particular cultures and times, the Bible is an interesting literary artifact.

This becomes a problem when the Bible is taken as the word of God, or as an ethical guide in modern life. The men of the time may not have known any better... but an omniscient god surely would have! And trying to pick kernels of ethics from this book, from among it truly appalling stories of violence and revenge, hatred and intolerance, is a task I gave up on long ago.

It's interesting to compare the Bible with some of the old Norse sagas. These latter were composed in truly savage times, by a piratical people who were virtually unrestrained by any effective law. Given the choice, I'd far rather have lived among the pagan Vikings...

[Redzeppelin]

To me, the explanation is that the Bible was written and compiled in ages that were unquestioningly patriarchal. They didn't know any better. As a document of particular cultures and times, the Bible is an interesting literary artifact.

This becomes a problem when the Bible is taken as the word of God, or as an ethical guide in modern life. The men of the time may not have known any better... but an omniscient god surely would have! And trying to pick kernels of ethics from this book, from among it truly appalling stories of violence and revenge, hatred and intolerance, is a task I gave up on long ago.


If the Bible is not divinely inspired, than it's a waste of time to read it because the very premise upon which it is founded is the belief that it contains the revelation of God's character.

Second, don't be so sure that in the grand scheme of things, that an entity capable of creating all of the universe prioritizes certain social issues as high up the list as we do. We make a serious error when we decide that a God that doesn't pass our cultural "litmus tests" must not be taken seriously. Compared to the fate of our eternal souls, gender equality just may not have been something that God felt the need to address within the Bible. The Bible does contain - however - the principles within it that logically suggest that equality between genders should exist. While there are some cultural statements that suggest the 2nd class status of women, the truths the Bible puts forward do not suggest that woman are innately inferior to men at all.

Lastly - yes: the Bible is full of some pretty ugly stories - because it is largely the story of the consequences of rejecting God and pretending that His laws and His commands aren't important.

A careful reading of the Bible (preferably more than once) would reveal the validity of all three of my points.


It's interesting to compare the Bible with some of the old Norse sagas. These latter were composed in truly savage times, by a piratical people who were virtually unrestrained by any effective law. Given the choice, I'd far rather have lived among the pagan Vikings...


It is amazing to hear sentiments expressed like this: what this means is that you've probably picked out all the negative stuff in the Bible and used it as "evidence" to condemn it, while fully ignoring the plethora of other passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments about God's love, mercy, long-suffering, justice, kindness, and compassion for humanity. In argumentation, we call that a straw man, and such an argument is only effective if your opponent doesn't catch it.

[patrickbeverley]

If the Bible is not divinely inspired, than it's a waste of time to read it because the very premise upon which it is founded is the belief that it contains the revelation of God's character.
NOT TRUE. The Bible is one of the greatest works of literature ever written. I read it as a mix of allegorical myth and historical novel, and I LOVE it.

[Redzeppelin]

NOT TRUE. The Bible is one of the greatest works of literature ever written. I read it as a mix of allegorical myth and historical novel, and I LOVE it.

OK - let me clarify myself: as literature, the Bible has many interesting and meaningful things within it - but if it is not the transcendant word of God, then it cannot function as a text that is meaningful in terms of revealing God - which is its implicit purpose. The Bible does not remain one of the most purchased and read books of all time because it's good literature: it retains this status because it changes lives through its divinely inspired narrative. The book reveals God; that's what makes it powerful. Dismiss that, and it becomes merely another story-book.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Er-How many women disciples were there ?
How many Women at the Last Supper ?
Nuff said ?

Might I add that Mary & Mary were some of the few present at his crucifixion?

Or that Mary, the Mother of God, was the first person accepted into heaven? The first sinless human being?

She seems to have been given the highest place in Christianity that has been given to a human.

[aabbcc]

Why is God refered to in the hebrew as a 'man' with 'feminine' traits?
:confused: Could you elaborate on this in a small off-topic?

[curlyqlink]

A careful reading of the Bible (preferably more than once) would reveal the validity of all three of my points.

Curious, because to me it seems equally obvious that a careful and objective reading of the Bible reveals the validity of my point!


what this means is that you've probably picked out all the negative stuff in the Bible and used it as "evidence" to condemn it, while fully ignoring the plethora of other passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments about God's love, mercy, long-suffering, justice, kindness, and compassion for humanity.

First, you seem to be assuming that the reason I don't share your assessment of the Bible is because I somehow read it wrong.

Second, it is the very contradictory nature of the material compiled within the Bible that argues against any divine authorship. Turn the other cheek, or an eye for an eye?

I judge the Bible by the same standards I use reading any other book. Specifically, reading any book that is a written compilation of an earlier oral tradition. Like the Icelandic Sagas. I'm not on a mission to pick out--nor on the other hand to excuse--the appalling stuff in any of these texts.

It so happens that I find a great deal of morally objectionable material in the Bible. Its tone is authoritarian and patriarchal; in this it compares unfavorably with the Sagas, which seem more egalitarian and personal. There is almost nothing in them compelling obedience to arbitrary laws; these were people who seemingly couldn't care less if someone next door worshiped a golden calf or ate things that creepeth. The women in the Sagas seem more complex, more fully developed as characters. They are certainly more powerful.

I view both types of text as products of the age that produced them. A Nordic, seafaring culture is very different from a nomadic desert culture. Neither one, it seems to me, is a particularly suitable source of moral lessons for modern man. As for their comparative literary merit, the Sagas seem to me to be far more coherent.

[Redzeppelin]

Curious, because to me it seems equally obvious that a careful and objective reading of the Bible reveals the validity of my point!

I don't think the Bible can be read "objectively" because of what it claims to reveal - the character of God.



First, you seem to be assuming that the reason I don't share your assessment of the Bible is because I somehow read it wrong.

I imply no such thing. I suggested that what you've done is a common tactic in any case being presented: selective evidence. I can't know how you read the Bible, but I know that people who speak of its "negatives" rarely speak of the evidence that paints God in a more positive light.


Second, it is the very contradictory nature of the material compiled within the Bible that argues against any divine authorship. Turn the other cheek, or an eye for an eye?

This is a good example of apprehending the surface but missing the depth. There is large difference between the laws given the Israelites after their enforced slavery in Egypt and the "revision" of those laws provided by Jesus (hence the term the "new covenant"). The New Testament makes clear that the relationship between God and his people had changed. When the Jews came out of Egypt after 400 years of captivity, they needed very specific laws about how to behave; that is a different matter than Christ coming to Earth to reveal the character of God. Not all "contradictions" retain that title under close examination. Some "appear" rather than "are."


I judge the Bible by the same standards I use reading any other book. Specifically, reading any book that is a written compilation of an earlier oral tradition. Like the Icelandic Sagas. I'm not on a mission to pick out--nor on the other hand to excuse--the appalling stuff in any of these texts.

You may lump the Bible in with other books, but other books don't make its claim to be the revelation of God's character to mankind. That makes it very different from the average book. Might you clarify some examples of the "appalling stuff" from the Bible that makes its "world" so much less appealing than the brutality of the Viking world?


It so happens that I find a great deal of morally objectionable material in the Bible. Its tone is authoritarian and patriarchal; in this it compares unfavorably with the Sagas, which seem more egalitarian and personal. There is almost nothing in them compelling obedience to arbitrary laws; these were people who seemingly couldn't care less if someone next door worshiped a golden calf or ate things that creepeth. The women in the Sagas seem more complex, more fully developed as characters. They are certainly more powerful.

But they're not even in the same class as literature; the Bible isn't about characterization (except of God) and plot, action, etc. You cannot speak of a generic "tone" for the Bible - it is a collection of 66 different books by a number of authors - and within those books the writers utilize different tones among them, often differing their tone within their own book. What "authoritarian" tone? Where? Yeah - it's patriarchal - as were most societies that wrote during the same time period (and for some time afterward). So? Are we to reject ancient literature on the grounds that it doesn't meet 21st century expectations? As if meaning can only exist in a "politically correct" culture?

Who's being "compelled" to obey? God always gives us a choice whether or not to obey.

"Arbitrary laws"? Where are those? By whose claim are these laws "arbitrary"?

Humans don't have to care what their neighbors worship, but God (who knows the consequences of rejecting Him) should care.


I view both types of text as products of the age that produced them. A Nordic, seafaring culture is very different from a nomadic desert culture. Neither one, it seems to me, is a particularly suitable source of moral lessons for modern man. As for their comparative literary merit, the Sagas seem to me to be far more coherent.

You are free to view the Bible as such, but I think that's a mistake, because the Icelandic Sagas make no claim to transcendant meaning - the Bible makes that claim. As such, you're really comparing an apple and an orange. It doesn't matter whether you think the Bible is divinely inspired or not; by simple virtue of the book's claims and content, it is different and should be judged differently - just as a Shakespeare play should not be compared to a historical chronicle.

[curlyqlink]

You may lump the Bible in with other books, but other books don't make its claim to be the revelation of God's character to mankind.
I'm currently reading Ovid's Metamorphoses. It very much reveals the character of the gods.

Of course, these are "false" gods, not "the one true God." But wait a minute... if we assume from the beginning that the Bible is divinely inspired, then it is of course perfect and above criticism! If the Bible seems convoluted or contradictory, or too violent or arbitrary or immoral, then these faults must lie with us, in our limited understanding.

To me, this is no way to be an objective reader.

The Bible may claim to be the revelation of God's character. (Or, to be accurate, some may make that claim on the Bible's behalf.) My response is: where's the proof? What the actual document reveals I can easily see as a nomadic desert people's conception of a "perfect" god. A powerful male authority figure who takes care of his tribe an woe unto the others. (Jesus being a variation on the theme, better suited to later peoples living under Roman, rather than Egyptian rule.)

To me, it seems that the Bible's God (both pere and fils) are products of the times of their respective disciples.


What "authoritarian" tone? Where? Yeah - it's patriarchal - as were most societies that wrote during the same time period
Yes, it is a product of its times. But wait a minute... how can this be, if it is the Word of God? An all-powerful, omniscient deity who exists beyond time... can it be that his Word is dated?

As for the authoritarian tone. It's in the commandments and pronouncements from on high. Even in the New Testament, there's nothing in the way of discussion-- it's strictly teacher/disciple. Democracy is conspicuous in its absence. Almost as if the people who conceived the book had never heard of it...

All of which undercuts the claim that the Bible is "different".


Are we to reject ancient literature on the grounds that it doesn't meet 21st century expectations?
Not at all, and obviously not what I'm suggesting. I don't reject the Bible any more than I reject the Sagas or Ovid. I read them all as products of their time. And I read none of them as Revelation-- not of Jove, or Thor, or of the god of Judeo-Christian tradition. Seems to me the only fair way to read and compare them.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm currently reading Ovid's Metamorphoses. It very much reveals the character of the gods.

Of course, these are "false" gods, not "the one true God." But wait a minute... if we assume from the beginning that the Bible is divinely inspired, then it is of course perfect and above criticism! If the Bible seems convoluted or contradictory, or too violent or arbitrary or immoral, then these faults must lie with us, in our limited understanding.

To me, this is no way to be an objective reader.

The Bible may claim to be the revelation of God's character. (Or, to be accurate, some may make that claim on the Bible's behalf.) My response is: where's the proof? What the actual document reveals I can easily see as a nomadic desert people's conception of a "perfect" god. A powerful male authority figure who takes care of his tribe an woe unto the others. (Jesus being a variation on the theme, better suited to later peoples living under Roman, rather than Egyptian rule.)

To me, it seems that the Bible's God (both pere and fils) are products of the times of their respective disciples.

Yes, it is a product of its times. But wait a minute... how can this be, if it is the Word of God? An all-powerful, omniscient deity who exists beyond time... can it be that his Word is dated?

As for the authoritarian tone. It's in the commandments and pronouncements from on high. Even in the New Testament, there's nothing in the way of discussion-- it's strictly teacher/disciple. Democracy is conspicuous in its absence. Almost as if the people who conceived the book had never heard of it...

All of which undercuts the claim that the Bible is "different".


Not at all, and obviously not what I'm suggesting. I don't reject the Bible any more than I reject the Sagas or Ovid. I read them all as products of their time. And I read none of them as Revelation-- not of Jove, or Thor, or of the god of Judeo-Christian tradition. Seems to me the only fair way to read and compare them.

A couple of thoughts. First off, I'm not sure Ovid reveals the gods the same way the Bible attempts to reveal G-d (whether you believe in the existence of G-d or not). From the point-of-view of the Bible and its various writers, quite clearly the majority of them believed in G-d.

Ovid most likely didn't really believe in the Roman gods. Ovid makes a great deal of fun of the anthropomorphic qualities of the gods. His tone is always playful and almost always ironic. Part of what Ovid seems to be doing is showing how the anthropomorphic qualities of the gods is a silly concept. He almost wants you to share in on the joke. In another work Ovid is quoted as saying: "It's useful that there should be Gods, so let's believe there are." This seems to me a rather cynical statement that hints that Ovid is only interested in the gods for playful literary purposes.

My point here is that Ovid doesn't really reveal much about the character of the gods in the same way that other religious texts do, even pagan ones that have genuine belief behind their writing, because it is important to remember that Ovid probably heavily manipulated his stories from the original Greek stories for typically Ovidian purposes: pornographic sexual acts (see in the context of his other works), to show off his own learning to an elite Roman audience, and to playfully mock at the gods and beliefs. So it would seem he manipulated or at least exaggerated the quality of the Roman/Greek gods for his own literary purposes.

Which is very different I think from the perspective found in the Bible whether you believe in G-d or not. Just thought I'd point that out.

[Redzeppelin]

To me, this is no way to be an objective reader.

Like I said - I don't think the Bible can be read "objectively" - its assertion to be the revelation of God means that it is either a) exactly what it says, or b) just another ancient work of fiction - which means that its ability to guide us and instruct us as to the character of God is highly suspect.


The Bible may claim to be the revelation of God's character. (Or, to be accurate, some may make that claim on the Bible's behalf.) My response is: where's the proof? What the actual document reveals I can easily see as a nomadic desert people's conception of a "perfect" god. A powerful male authority figure who takes care of his tribe an woe unto the others. (Jesus being a variation on the theme, better suited to later peoples living under Roman, rather than Egyptian rule.)

Anybody who knows history will acknowledge that we really don't have "proof" of anything. How do you know the events of the American Civil War happened? How do you know that France and England had a Hundred Years' War? The only "proof" we have are documents that claim eyewitness accounts - and most grad students in history will tell you that the reality is that history is created by individual perspectives. Or, to be more cynical, that history is "written by the winners." What all this means is that the doubt you cast upon the Bible is equally deserved by most historical texts because history is highly subjective and much of what we take for "fact" cannot really be proven - at least in the empirical way you seem to wish for.

That God is personified as male is a convention of sorts that I cannot pretend to understand. But, Genesis claims that man and woman are both made "in the image of God" which suggests that God contains both the masculine and feminine characteristics within Himself - that the source of masculinity and femininity is God.

God selected the Hebrews to be his people because Abraham chose to honor and obey God; what the Bible doesn't spend a lot of time dwelling on is that the Earth by and large didn't honor or obey Him; Abraham's choice to do so prompted God to make a covenant to take care of Abraham's off-spring as his "chosen" people. You assume that this was a random choice; more than likely, the other people's of the Earth didn't want God and rejected Him. God is love - so the Bible says - there is no logical reason for God to arbitrarily pick one people over another. There must be an extenuating circumstance.



Yes, it is a product of its times. But wait a minute... how can this be, if it is the Word of God? An all-powerful, omniscient deity who exists beyond time... can it be that his Word is dated?

It is a product of its times because God chose to have human beings write it; it is divinely inspired because it contains principles that transcend culture. As I've said before: a supreme Being wishes to communicate His character to people so that they could know Him in order to better enter into relationship with Him; His word was not created to solve all social ills and correct all problems in culture - those things He left up to us, with the Bible providing plenty of positive guidance (check your history books about the founding of the United States for an example, or the Christian push for the abolition of slavery) about how to better improve our existence.


As for the authoritarian tone. It's in the commandments and pronouncements from on high. Even in the New Testament, there's nothing in the way of discussion-- it's strictly teacher/disciple. Democracy is conspicuous in its absence. Almost as if the people who conceived the book had never heard of it...

Well, come on: if the book is indeed what it claims to be, and God (the creator of all reality, of the entire universe and the human body to boot) is indeed as powerful and perfect as the book suggests, don't you think that that gives Him a healthy amount of authority? If I created Windows Vista, wouldn't that make me an authority on how it works? God is the "author" of all reality - I think that gives Him plenty of authority to say what is and is not good, is and is not right.

Your wish for "democracy" ignores the reality that you can't have "democracy" with a supreme being - it would be like having 3-year-olds in congress tyring to legislate for a wise and experienced president (but much worse). God gives us free will and also gives us a certain amount of responsibilty in being His "hands and feet" (ie carrying forward His work) and He gives us plenty of choice in how we do certain things. Once again, this is you wanting an ancient text to espouse modern "values."


Not at all, and obviously not what I'm suggesting. I don't reject the Bible any more than I reject the Sagas or Ovid. I read them all as products of their time. And I read none of them as Revelation-- not of Jove, or Thor, or of the god of Judeo-Christian tradition. Seems to me the only fair way to read and compare them.

Except that the Sagas or Ovid do not contain the kind of transcendant revelation of God that changes lives; the Bible has changed lives and inspired humans to the heights of noble, compassionate, selfless, loving behavior; I challenge you to show that the other "comparable" works have done anything similar on the same historical scale.

[jgweed]

"Anybody who knows history will acknowledge that we really don't have "proof" of anything. How do you know the events of the American Civil War happened? How do you know that France and England had a Hundred Years' War? The only "proof" we have are documents that claim eyewitness accounts - and most grad students in history will tell you that the reality is that history is created by individual perspectives. Or, to be more cynical, that history is "written by the winners.""
While I disagree with this statement's reductionist conclusion (having been a grad student in both history and philosophy), cannot a similar argument be brought against the religious dogmas with which, in the case, the Bible is interpreted?

I do not see how one can consistently argue, for example, that Lincoln did not exist (or strictly speaking that it cannot be absolutely proved the Emancipator existed, and this depends on a very rigorous definition of truth) and then accept the accounts of the Bible as "fact" or the existence of Jesus as proven.

It seems that the Bible is a very complex document written on many different occasions and for many different purposes, and so is the history of its interpretations (not to mention its provenance and the choice of the canon) over the last 2000 years. Is it enough to understand the Bible from only a religious (or non-religious) perspective, or to omit the influence upon the world and upon how its interpretations have influenced both itself and the world through history?

[Sam?]

But they're not even in the same class as literature; the Bible isn't about characterization (except of God) and plot, action, etc. .

I find this a very interesting statement on your part, considering that the God of the bible is possibly the most inconsistent character in all of literature. For a being supposedly perfect he's awfully given to wild moodswings and the complete alteration of his basic principles.
It's almost as if he was a fictional character who changed over time to match the changing nature of the world in which the people writing about him lived in...
Why should the all powerful creator of the universe have to pussy foot around local customs? Considering his frequent decisions to murder his chosen people for asking questions (before Moses enevitably talked him around, suggesting that God's initial decision was wrong, which would mean he wasn't perfect after all, and in fact humans sometimes know better than he does), I'd say he could have forced them to uphold any morals he gave them. So why didn't he say slavery was a bad thing from the beginning?

[dzebra]

So why didn't he say slavery was a bad thing from the beginning?

You can't change people by making rules. You change people by making them want to change themselves. (or brainwashing)

[Redzeppelin]

While I disagree with this statement's reductionist conclusion (having been a grad student in both history and philosophy), cannot a similar argument be brought against the religious dogmas with which, in the case, the Bible is interpreted?

I do not see how one can consistently argue, for example, that Lincoln did not exist (or strictly speaking that it cannot be absolutely proved the Emancipator existed, and this depends on a very rigorous definition of truth) and then accept the accounts of the Bible as "fact" or the existence of Jesus as proven.


The point I was trying to make (rather poorly, I guess) is that many people hold as "proven facts" many aspects of life and history that are no more "provable" than the narrative of the Bible. We "know" history based on eyewitness accounts, reports and whatnot; the Bible claims the same. As well, the specifics of how the OT books and NT books were compiled and authenitcated are far more rigorous than many pieces of "history" that we take for fact. That was the only point I was trying to make. I think sometimes people tend to ask the Bible to have a more strict level of "provability" than other aspects of history which we find less challenging to believe.


I find this a very interesting statement on your part, considering that the God of the bible is possibly the most inconsistent character in all of literature. For a being supposedly perfect he's awfully given to wild moodswings and the complete alteration of his basic principles.
It's almost as if he was a fictional character who changed over time to match the changing nature of the world in which the people writing about him lived in...
Why should the all powerful creator of the universe have to pussy foot around local customs? Considering his frequent decisions to murder his chosen people for asking questions (before Moses enevitably talked him around, suggesting that God's initial decision was wrong, which would mean he wasn't perfect after all, and in fact humans sometimes know better than he does), I'd say he could have forced them to uphold any morals he gave them. So why didn't he say slavery was a bad thing from the beginning?

This would be more productive if you would give examples of all your charges. I'm used to people posting paragraphs like yours - full of accusations and such - but what I'm not used to is actually having the poster provide the examples from the Bible of these charges. Doing so would allow me to have some sort of specific (rather than general) response.

In terms of "pussy-footing around local customs" - what you seem to assume is that God's job is to correct all social ills in a time frame that makes sense to us. I don't understand why slavery (and several other issues of importance) weren't addressed by God in the Bible - but because I believe God is perfect in His ways, all-knowing, all-powerful and completely just, then I must (logically) assume there is a good reason He chose not to deal with the topic. Remember: this is the God of the universe - just because He doesn't deal with things our way doesn't make Him wrong - any more than the parent who doesn't do things the 4-year-old's way is wrong. We make a dangerous mistake when we decide to pit our judgment against a being who can create the universe and believe that our assessment is superior. We've developed computers and cell-phones and can send cameras into space, can predict the weather (sort of), cure disease and watch Hi-Def TV, and these accomplishments establish that we are of an intellect that can evaluate the fitness of the decisions of God - who called the universe into existence with His words?

[Sam?]

The point I was trying to make (rather poorly, I guess) is that many people hold as "proven facts" many aspects of life and history that are no more "provable" than the narrative of the Bible. We "know" history based on eyewitness accounts, reports and whatnot; the Bible claims the same. As well, the specifics of how the OT books and NT books were compiled and authenitcated are far more rigorous than many pieces of "history" that we take for fact. That was the only point I was trying to make. I think sometimes people tend to ask the Bible to have a more strict level of "provability" than other aspects of history which we find less challenging to believe.



This would be more productive if you would give examples of all your charges. I'm used to people posting paragraphs like yours - full of accusations and such - but what I'm not used to is actually having the poster provide the examples from the Bible of these charges. Doing so would allow me to have some sort of specific (rather than general) response.

In terms of "pussy-footing around local customs" - what you seem to assume is that God's job is to correct all social ills in a time frame that makes sense to us. I don't understand why slavery (and several other issues of importance) weren't addressed by God in the Bible - but because I believe God is perfect in His ways, all-knowing, all-powerful and completely just, then I must (logically) assume there is a good reason He chose not to deal with the topic. Remember: this is the God of the universe - just because He doesn't deal with things our way doesn't make Him wrong - any more than the parent who doesn't do things the 4-year-old's way is wrong. We make a dangerous mistake when we decide to pit our judgment against a being who can create the universe and believe that our assessment is superior. We've developed computers and cell-phones and can send cameras into space, can predict the weather (sort of), cure disease and watch Hi-Def TV, and these accomplishments establish that we are of an intellect that can evaluate the fitness of the decisions of God - who called the universe into existence with His words?

History doesn't claim that night and day were invented before the sun, that almost every oxygen breathing creature on the planet was murdered with a flood that would have required more water than there is, or that virgins gave birth and men rose from the dead. However fallible history might be, most of it has been pieced together from evidence of some kind or another. That cannot be said for the bible.

You want examples of God's inconsistency? Well let's start with the example I gave, and you ignored. God repeatedly gets the ****s with the Israelites during their time in the desert and decides to kill them. Moses points out that if he does that, he'll look silly in front of the Egyptians, after all the effort he went to showing off earlier, and God changes his mind. A perfect being could never change its mind, by its very definition. I'll also point out again that in these stories, from the bible (and this happens a few times) it is Moses who knows better than God, and God admits this by listening to him.
What else? Well, God's always destroying people and civilisations, or telling his people to (Sodom, Canaan, Egypt, the entire world, etc) and then all of a sudden Jesus comes along and hey, apparently it's all about love.
God is supposed to be omnipotent. But before he destroys Sodom, he's talked into sending angels to make sure there aren't any nice people there. Again, a human knows better than God. Better yet, the first person the angels come across is a good person. Why didn't God know about him already?
I could go on and on, and will if you want, but not until you address every one of these examples.

Your 'logic' is about as illogical as it can get. 'Hey, all the evidence points to God either not existing or being fallible, but an old book says he's not, I guess the evidence must be wrong!' Why must you assume God knows best? The world is full of suffering, and the bible full of God's mood swings and mistakes. Isn't it possible that God isn't quite as great as he says he is?

[Pendragon]

When I learned history in the 60's and 70's, we were taught many things which have changed in history lessons today. Part of this is because there were things which the government simply did not want to admit took place, such as the Japanese Containment Camps in the USA during WWII. Other things were also kept secret but latter revealed, such as Thomas Jefferson's dilly-dallying with his black mistress. Some things are hard to believe such as the statement that the founding fathers were simply Deists, not Christian as we know it.

One thing about the Bible is it hasn't changed in the time I've been alive. That cannot be said for history.

God bless

[jgweed]

"One thing about the Bible is it hasn't changed in the time I've been alive. That cannot be said for history."
The Bible (or for that matter, say, The Odyssey) may not have changed during the time you have been alive, but how it is interpreted has (or at least so recently). For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls seems to have had, once they were studied, some influence on our view of local religion during the Roman occupation.
One could also point to the subtle change between 1910 and 1970 in the interpretation of race relations.

Granted, our understanding of historical events is subject to new interpretations as more information becomes known and research encompasses more and more data, but the same can be said for Biblical exegesis, can it not?

[curlyqlink]

I'm not sure Ovid reveals the gods the same way the Bible attempts to reveal G-d
I agree, Ovid seems skeptical about the "reality" of the gods. It strikes me as a respectful and admiring skepticism, and they are in one sense very "real"-- as metaphor.

I would argue that Ovid is much more effective at revealing the nature of the gods than the bible is at characterizing its God. God seems to be presented as a mystery, full of contradictions. He cannot be named, let alone known. For centuries, greater minds than mine have puzzled over His nature, studying the relevant texts and coming to conflicting conclusions. Conflict serious enough to result in much bloodshed. If it is the Bible's purpose to reveal the true nature of God to mankind, it seems to me the The Good Book has made a very poor job of it.


the God of the bible is possibly the most inconsistent character in all of literature

So true. I think the authors of the Bible set themselves an impossible task, and ended up creating a representation of very imperfect Perfection. I think this fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bible is the strongest evidence within the text itself that man creates God in his own image.

[Jozanny]

ISo true. I think the authors of the Bible set themselves an impossible task, and ended up creating a representation of very imperfect Perfection. I think this fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bible is the strongest evidence within the text itself that man creates God in his own image.

Exactly, and that image evolves over time. The most frightening thing about the human animal though, is its need for an ideology or doctrine to be the right one. We simply cannot get past this. Certainly, the West owes a debt to the evolution of Judaism. It was arguably a metaphysical advance over animism within nature, but Yahweh as a character is morally questionable, and *the Christ* which was the next metaphysical outgrowth, has led to so much schism, hypocrisy, and brutality as to border on the absurd. I am not a follower of Eastern religious thought, but I respect Hinduism and its various brands much more than monotheistic tradition, because there is reverence for the life force itself in all forms.

[Sam?]

When I learned history in the 60's and 70's, we were taught many things which have changed in history lessons today. Part of this is because there were things which the government simply did not want to admit took place, such as the Japanese Containment Camps in the USA during WWII. Other things were also kept secret but latter revealed, such as Thomas Jefferson's dilly-dallying with his black mistress. Some things are hard to believe such as the statement that the founding fathers were simply Deists, not Christian as we know it.

One thing about the Bible is it hasn't changed in the time I've been alive. That cannot be said for history.

God bless

So let's look at your logic here. You're admitting that since you were educated, our knowledge of history has changed to become more accurate. Change has improved out knowledge of history.
And then you claim that the lack of change in the bible, despite new understandings of the world around us, is somehow a good thing?
If I still believed in Santa, would that lend anything to the accuracy of the Santa myth, or just be a sign that I've had my head stuck in the ground since I was a kid?

The bible still says pi is three. We know beyond a doubt that this is false. And yet we haven't changed it. The bible is still the same because christians refuse to change it no matter what, not because it's somehow stood the test of time and is just as accurate now as it was two thousand years ago.

[Drkshadow03]

So let's look at your logic here. You're admitting that since you were educated, our knowledge of history has changed to become more accurate. Change has improved out knowledge of history.
And then you claim that the lack of change in the bible, despite new understandings of the world around us, is somehow a good thing?
If I still believed in Santa, would that lend anything to the accuracy of the Santa myth, or just be a sign that I've had my head stuck in the ground since I was a kid?

The bible still says pi is three. We know beyond a doubt that this is false. And yet we haven't changed it. The bible is still the same because christians refuse to change it no matter what, not because it's somehow stood the test of time and is just as accurate now as it was two thousand years ago.

Eh, the Bible approximates that Pi is three. It doesn't directly say pi is three. I personally think that is reaching for rather low-hanging fruit.

[Redzeppelin]

History doesn't claim that night and day were invented before the sun, that almost every oxygen breathing creature on the planet was murdered with a flood that would have required more water than there is, or that virgins gave birth and men rose from the dead. However fallible history might be, most of it has been pieced together from evidence of some kind or another. That cannot be said for the bible.

I didn't assert that the Bible and "history" were equal in content; that would be a silly comparison because "history" and the Bible have different functions, aims,and intents; that said, what I was putting forth was more the idea of how we decide something is factual and true. Your argument suggests that since history is more "believable" then it must be true. That's a risky position, because actual history contains events and biographies full of almost unbelievable circumstances (even now there are people who deny we went to the moon, because such a thing seems unimaginable). My point (to reiterate) deals with the point you've actually made: history and the events of the Bible aren't much different in how they were recorded and passed down through time, but because what history claims seems more reasonable, we're more apt to believe it, even if what substantiates it isn't much more credible than what substantiates the Bible.


want examples of God's inconsistency? Well let's start with the example I gave, and you ignored. God repeatedly gets the ****s with the Israelites during their time in the desert and decides to kill them. Moses points out that if he does that, he'll look silly in front of the Egyptians, after all the effort he went to showing off earlier, and God changes his mind. A perfect being could never change its mind, by its very definition. I'll also point out again that in these stories, from the bible (and this happens a few times) it is Moses who knows better than God, and God admits this by listening to him.

God rescued the Israelites from 400 years of Egytian servitude; during that time they pretty much forgot who He was and what it meant to serve Him - though they were still aware of Him. When God rescued them, He commanded that they be obedient to Him - the same kind of expectation that exists for children under their parents' authority; the person in power gets to make the rules. Sin is abhorrent to God - because it destroys everything it touches (which is why leprosy is often used in the Bible as a metaphor for sin); God has good reason to hate it. Sin is rebellion against God, and the Israelites were continually being unfaithful to the God who had brought them out of slavery. Their ingratitude, their grumbling, their continued disrespect towards Him by their turning to other Gods warranted their deaths - at least in God's opinion (your disagreement with that logic doesn't make God wrong - anymore than the 3-year-old's disagreement with his parents' disciplinary measures makes them wrong). We may think their crimes insignificant, but we cannot read their hearts like God can; such behaviors, while appearing innocuous, may in reality point to a deeper, more serious attitude problem towards God.

As well, you assume that God doesn't do things for the benefit of His creations; how do you know that God's mind wasn't "changed," that He intended to keep the Israelites alive, but wanted Moses to "step up" in his role as leader? Sometimes - as a parent and teacher - I ask my children or students to convince me of something not so my mind can be changed, but because I want to hear their reasons, and I want them to explore their own logic. There are other answers than the one you have proposed.


What else? Well, God's always destroying people and civilisations, or telling his people to (Sodom, Canaan, Egypt, the entire world, etc) and then all of a sudden Jesus comes along and hey, apparently it's all about love.

The Bible is a limited document; it cannot give all details about all things, and one of the things it refuses to share in detail are the motivations and intentions of God. People are very quick to judge God for the judgments He laid upon various cultures of the OT; but - how much evidence are you in command of? How much do you know about these cultures and their attitude towards God? How much do you know about their rejection of Him, perhaps even their disrespect and mocking of Him? If you intend to condemn God using what the Bible says, then I assume you also understand that (to be consistent) you must also consider the defense the Bible offers? The Bible tells us that God is loving, merciful, all-knowing and just; it then follows that any "death sentence" God gives is based upon those qualitites. If you ignore those positive qualities and instead blast God on the "negative" episodes, then you are being selective in your choice of evidence and suppressing relevant evidence that mitigates the charge you are making.

I do not understand why God chose to condemn certain cultures, but - based on the character the Bible attributes to Him, I make the assumption (a logical one that even our courts adhere to) that there must be a good reason for His decisions based on His character.

Jesus wasn't "all about love." He made it clear that there were still consequences for sin and that judgment was still in place; he simply offered a different way of helping us connect to God. Jesus was capable of fierce behavior (check out any confrontation with the Pharisees and the "cleansing of the temple" episode).



God is supposed to be omnipotent. But before he destroys Sodom, he's talked into sending angels to make sure there aren't any nice people there. Again, a human knows better than God. Better yet, the first person the angels come across is a good person. Why didn't God know about him already?

God is omnipotent - not everything He does is about Himself; the Bible is the record of God's interactions with humanity; sometimes, I imagine that He chooses to do things a certain way for the benefit of His creatures; in this case, Abraham's nephew Lot. As well, the "bargaining" between Abraham and God may be less about convincing God and more about God exploring the heart of His servant Abraham - exploring it in a way that revealed to Abraham the nature of his own heart. Don't neglect the reality that God does things that are also for the benefit of His creatures. As a teacher, I rarely ask a question I don't know the answer to - I ask so that the student realizes what s/he does/n't know. God may be no different in that aspect.


I could go on and on, and will if you want, but not until you address every one of these examples.

Done.


Your 'logic' is about as illogical as it can get. 'Hey, all the evidence points to God either not existing or being fallible, but an old book says he's not, I guess the evidence must be wrong!' Why must you assume God knows best? The world is full of suffering, and the bible full of God's mood swings and mistakes. Isn't it possible that God isn't quite as great as he says he is?

1. I assume God knows best, because if He doesn't, then He is not worthy of being followed. You cannot (as I pointed out above) just pick out the things in the Bible that seem to "condemn" God and ignore the majority of the Bible that tells us that He is loving, just, merciful, long-suffering, patient, compassionate, all-knowing, wise, etc. It smacks of selective evidence to only pick out that which supports your case and then ignore that which weakens your case. If you're going to accept the "negatives" in the OT, you also need to accept the positives. In a court of law, "character witnesses" function to suggest that a person's character can mitigate his/her actions (to a degree); the same is true of the Bible: there is enough evidence to suggest that God's character is good - and assuming that to be true (which we can do because you seem very quick to assume it's bad based on "evidence" from the very same book), I believe that there are mitigating circumstances (that will eventually be revealed) that explain some of these troubling episodes from the OT.

2. What you see as "mood swings" may be something different. Remember, you are not in command of all the facts; only God is. To use the Bible to condemn God is to build a case on very scant evidence; I don't think a lawyer would actually take on a case against God based only on the evidence in the Bible - there is much more evidence that vindicates God than that which appears to condemn Him. (Check out investigative journalist Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ as an example of this.)

3. Perhaps God is far greater than YOU think because you don't know Him at all - you've only seen (from the outside) some of His actions/decisions; if I watched your life from the outside, without any personal knowledge of you as a person - your dreams, fears, motivations, intentions - might I not radically misjudge some of the actions you take, decisions you make?

[Pendragon]

So let's look at your logic here. You're admitting that since you were educated, our knowledge of history has changed to become more accurate. Change has improved out knowledge of history.
And then you claim that the lack of change in the bible, despite new understandings of the world around us, is somehow a good thing?
If I still believed in Santa, would that lend anything to the accuracy of the Santa myth, or just be a sign that I've had my head stuck in the ground since I was a kid?

The bible still says pi is three. We know beyond a doubt that this is false. And yet we haven't changed it. The bible is still the same because christians refuse to change it no matter what, not because it's somehow stood the test of time and is just as accurate now as it was two thousand years ago.I don't think that history has particularly become more accurate, there is a good chance that the interpretation of history is being further obscured. And I've asked this before: Where in the Bible does it say pi is three? For some reason this doesn't come up in a careful search of the Bible via computer program.

Christians are commanded in Revelations not to change the Bible...yet, they do. In new interpretations of the Bible, there are verses that are omitted. Catholic Bibles have more books in them than Protestant Bibles. I'm told Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible. He didn't believe in miracles, so he took that out. He didn't believe in the resurrection, so he took that out. He didn't believe in anything but the four gospels, so that is all he used. I'll stand with the KJV, thank you.

God Bless

Pen

[Guinivere]

I'm told Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible. He didn't believe in miracles, so he took that out. He didn't believe in the resurrection, so he took that out. He didn't believe in anything but the four gospels, so that is all he used. I'll stand with the KJV, thank you.


Oh that is just brilliant. Wrote his own Bible.:lol: That man had a nerve. To some the most important book ever written and he writes his very own version. I love that.

If you take the resurrection out of christianity, what are you left with ? The Father, the who and the Holy Spirit. I guess in modern times it is hard to grasp. But the again if you are a christian you don't have to grasp it, much less prove it, if such a thing were possible which it isn't...I'm rambling. What I mean is if it is called faith, belief, etc. you don't have to change anything the Bible saiys, you only have to kepp an open mind.

[jgweed]

"People are very quick to judge God for the judgments He laid upon various cultures of the OT; but - how much evidence are you in command of? How much do you know about these cultures and their attitude towards God? How much do you know about their rejection of Him, perhaps even their disrespect and mocking of Him?"

How much does one need to know about Egyptian society and beliefs to be taken aback by God's punishing seemingly innocent farmers or gamekeepers with plagues, or his murder of first-born male infants some of whom were surely not even toddlers, and who were completely unaware and indifferent to the goings-on at the Pharoah's palace.---I suspect these children did not mock the God of the Jews, yet this God in his infinite wisdom and goodness smote them without pity or remorse.

We look at the pictures of dead children in the village streets in Darfur and shudder at the sight and condemn the government and its leader; and was not the Angel of Death the equivalent to the Jinjaweed or the SS death-camp squads?

[curlyqlink]

How much does one need to know about Egyptian society and beliefs to be taken aback by God's punishing seemingly innocent farmers or gamekeepers with plagues, or his murder of first-born male infants

It is appalling. This is collective punishment, it is genocide: things rightly condemned in the modern world. It is also of course sweet revenge; the idea of a powerful supernatural being settling the score on our behalf, loosing His righteous wrath against the enemy, has a powerful psychological appeal. Particularly to a close-knit, insular tribal mentality.

The creators of these biblical stories faced an impossible task in trying to describe a perfect God. Although He is supposed to transcend human weakness, He is of course an angry and jealous God, arbitrary and autocratic. The earth and mankind are supposed to be His crowning achievements, which leaves the tellers of the tale in the unenviable position of having to explain why this all-powerful Being made such an obvious botch of both!

I find the polytheist's pantheon much more appealing. Even, in a strange way, more believable. The Greek, Roman, and Norse gods are fallible, and they are comprehensible. They even have a sense of humor-- something the Bible is sadly lacking. If these gods seem to be looking the other way when the faithful are taking it on the chin, it is really no surprise-- the gods have their own problems, and they don't really care all that much anyway. When the sh** comes down while a supposedly loving and omniscient God is on watch... well, there's a big problem explaining it away.

[Drkshadow03]

The earth and mankind are supposed to be His crowning achievements, which leaves the tellers of the tale in the unenviable position of having to explain why this all-powerful Being made such an obvious botch of both!

Says who? While there are certainly many problems in this world, I do still think the world and people in general are mostly good. They just get confused sometimes and caught up in dogmas. Not to mention we aren't robots. People have free will, they make their own choices. If the world gets screwed up it's people's fault, not G-d's.


I find the polytheist's pantheon much more appealing. Even, in a strange way, more believable. The Greek, Roman, and Norse gods are fallible, and they are comprehensible. They even have a sense of humor-- something the Bible is sadly lacking. If these gods seem to be looking the other way when the faithful are taking it on the chin, it is really no surprise-- the gods have their own problems, and they don't really care all that much anyway. When the sh** comes down while a supposedly loving and omniscient God is on watch... well, there's a big problem explaining it away.

Don't you find it a bit ironic that this post started by talking about the misogyny of the Bible, but here you are claiming you find the Greek pantheon far more appealing, while the sexism found in the Greek myths makes the writers of the bible look like radical feminists.

[Sam?]

I didn't assert that the Bible and "history" were equal in content; that would be a silly comparison because "history" and the Bible have different functions, aims,and intents; that said, what I was putting forth was more the idea of how we decide something is factual and true. Your argument suggests that since history is more "believable" then it must be true. That's a risky position, because actual history contains events and biographies full of almost unbelievable circumstances (even now there are people who deny we went to the moon, because such a thing seems unimaginable). My point (to reiterate) deals with the point you've actually made: history and the events of the Bible aren't much different in how they were recorded and passed down through time, but because what history claims seems more reasonable, we're more apt to believe it, even if what substantiates it isn't much more credible than what substantiates the Bible.

Sorry, I missed the part where I said history must be true. As in science, the willingness to alter past assumptions leads to greater accuracy over time. That doesn't mean that what we know now is the absolute truth, but it means we're closer than we were.
You don't seem to understand history. Do you know how we know what we do about the ancient Egyptians? Because we dug up their ruins and translated their writings. It's called primary evidence. Our understanding doesn't come from vague stories passed down over time, it comes from evidence we can look at now. The bible is entirely secondary evidence, if you'd call it evidence at all, and historians always cast doubt on secondary evidence.




God rescued the Israelites from 400 years of Egytian servitude; during that time they pretty much forgot who He was and what it meant to serve Him - though they were still aware of Him. When God rescued them, He commanded that they be obedient to Him - the same kind of expectation that exists for children under their parents' authority; the person in power gets to make the rules. Sin is abhorrent to God - because it destroys everything it touches (which is why leprosy is often used in the Bible as a metaphor for sin); God has good reason to hate it. Sin is rebellion against God, and the Israelites were continually being unfaithful to the God who had brought them out of slavery. Their ingratitude, their grumbling, their continued disrespect towards Him by their turning to other Gods warranted their deaths - at least in God's opinion (your disagreement with that logic doesn't make God wrong - anymore than the 3-year-old's disagreement with his parents' disciplinary measures makes them wrong). We may think their crimes insignificant, but we cannot read their hearts like God can; such behaviors, while appearing innocuous, may in reality point to a deeper, more serious attitude problem towards God.

Note to self: It's okay to kill my kids if they disobey me.
That's where your logic fails. You judge all God's actions with the presumption that they are right. If you stood back and looked objectively you'd see an egotistical maniac. What happened to judging someone by what they do, not what they say?


As well, you assume that God doesn't do things for the benefit of His creations; how do you know that God's mind wasn't "changed," that He intended to keep the Israelites alive, but wanted Moses to "step up" in his role as leader? Sometimes - as a parent and teacher - I ask my children or students to convince me of something not so my mind can be changed, but because I want to hear their reasons, and I want them to explore their own logic. There are other answers than the one you have proposed.

Again, you're making wild unfounded excuses. If that were the case, why wouldn't the bible say so? And what about the Israelites he did kill before Moses talked him around? Is it okay to kill your kids friends to get a message through to your own kids?


The Bible is a limited document; it cannot give all details about all things, and one of the things it refuses to share in detail are the motivations and intentions of God. People are very quick to judge God for the judgments He laid upon various cultures of the OT; but - how much evidence are you in command of? How much do you know about these cultures and their attitude towards God? How much do you know about their rejection of Him, perhaps even their disrespect and mocking of Him? If you intend to condemn God using what the Bible says, then I assume you also understand that (to be consistent) you must also consider the defense the Bible offers? The Bible tells us that God is loving, merciful, all-knowing and just; it then follows that any "death sentence" God gives is based upon those qualitites. If you ignore those positive qualities and instead blast God on the "negative" episodes, then you are being selective in your choice of evidence and suppressing relevant evidence that mitigates the charge you are making.

You're right, what was I thinking? God says he's loving, merciful and all-knowing, so I should just take him on his word and ignore all the genocide he commits.
I'm not being selective with my evidence. In a court, if a murderer says he's innocent, is that even evidence? No. Is his diary, which lists all the murders he did? Yes. What God says isn't evidence at all. There's no reason to believe he's telling the truth, especially when his actions contradict him so much.
I don't care how much those cultures mocked God. There is no excuse for genocide. If someone mocks you, is it okay to kill them? Of course not. Let alone their whole people. Did the babies that drowned in the great flood mock him? Did the children of Egypt who were killed by his plagues mock him?



I do not understand why God chose to condemn certain cultures, but - based on the character the Bible attributes to Him, I make the assumption (a logical one that even our courts adhere to) that there must be a good reason for His decisions based on His character.

Again, there is no logic in your assumption. Where is the evidence that he's so nice and great? Only in his words. If we assume he's capable of lying, and judge him by his actions, your assumption about his character falls to pieces. Saying you're a nice person doesn't make you one.



Jesus wasn't "all about love." He made it clear that there were still consequences for sin and that judgment was still in place; he simply offered a different way of helping us connect to God. Jesus was capable of fierce behavior (check out any confrontation with the Pharisees and the "cleansing of the temple" episode).

God is omnipotent - not everything He does is about Himself; the Bible is the record of God's interactions with humanity; sometimes, I imagine that He chooses to do things a certain way for the benefit of His creatures; in this case, Abraham's nephew Lot. As well, the "bargaining" between Abraham and God may be less about convincing God and more about God exploring the heart of His servant Abraham - exploring it in a way that revealed to Abraham the nature of his own heart. Don't neglect the reality that God does things that are also for the benefit of His creatures. As a teacher, I rarely ask a question I don't know the answer to - I ask so that the student realizes what s/he does/n't know. God may be no different in that aspect.

You've left unadressed the fact that he didn't know there were nice people in Sodom.



Done.



1. I assume God knows best, because if He doesn't, then He is not worthy of being followed. You cannot (as I pointed out above) just pick out the things in the Bible that seem to "condemn" God and ignore the majority of the Bible that tells us that He is loving, just, merciful, long-suffering, patient, compassionate, all-knowing, wise, etc. It smacks of selective evidence to only pick out that which supports your case and then ignore that which weakens your case. If you're going to accept the "negatives" in the OT, you also need to accept the positives. In a court of law, "character witnesses" function to suggest that a person's character can mitigate his/her actions (to a degree); the same is true of the Bible: there is enough evidence to suggest that God's character is good - and assuming that to be true (which we can do because you seem very quick to assume it's bad based on "evidence" from the very same book), I believe that there are mitigating circumstances (that will eventually be revealed) that explain some of these troubling episodes from the OT.

I've covered most of this before, but I'll ask specifically: what is the evidence that God is nice? And I want examples of his actions, the things he and others say don't count.



2. What you see as "mood swings" may be something different. Remember, you are not in command of all the facts; only God is. To use the Bible to condemn God is to build a case on very scant evidence; I don't think a lawyer would actually take on a case against God based only on the evidence in the Bible - there is much more evidence that vindicates God than that which appears to condemn Him. (Check out investigative journalist Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ as an example of this.)

This argument works both ways. A


3. Perhaps God is far greater than YOU think because you don't know Him at all - you've only seen (from the outside) some of His actions/decisions; if I watched your life from the outside, without any personal knowledge of you as a person - your dreams, fears, motivations, intentions - might I not radically misjudge some of the actions you take, decisions you make?

The bible is a book specifically written to convince me he's great and I should worship him. If even his own book presents him as a murderous, egotistical maniac, what does that say about him?

You rather wasted your time writing all this, you could have just said 'God must be great, he says so himself, so just ignore or excuse all the atrocities he commits.'
I suggest you drop your assumptions and judge God by what he does, not what he says. Even when he's 'saving us' it requires the torture and murder of his own son.

[Redzeppelin]

You don't seem to understand history. Do you know how we know what we do about the ancient Egyptians? Because we dug up their ruins and translated their writings. It's called primary evidence. Our understanding doesn't come from vague stories passed down over time, it comes from evidence we can look at now. The bible is entirely secondary evidence, if you'd call it evidence at all, and historians always cast doubt on secondary evidence.

I understand it quite well, thank you. There is also evidence of the same sort that corroborates people and places in the Bible. What I am speaking of is the fact that we rely upon the testimony of others as to what happened in the distant (and even not-so-distant) past; we even rely upon others to interpret these ruins and writings - and we assume we're being told the truth -why?

I do not call the Bible "evidence" of anything; it is a narrative that claims to reveal the character of God; as a bonus, outside historical sources and archeological finds confirm much of what it says.


Note to self: It's okay to kill my kids if they disobey me.
That's where your logic fails. You judge all God's actions with the presumption that they are right. If you stood back and looked objectively you'd see an egotistical maniac. What happened to judging someone by what they do, not what they say?

Your sarcasm does little by way of keeping this an intelligent discussion - why is it that I find so many agnostics/atheists/doubters/whatever are so prone to nasty tones towards Christians in these discussions?

There is no such thing as "objectivity" when it comes to God, sorry. CS Lewis once pointed out that there were generally three responses to Christ while he was here on earth: people either a) adored him, b) hated him, or c) were terrified of him; whatever he inspired, it was never apathy. I think God is the same way.

Either way, I assume that God has right and just reasons for what He does based upon my relationship with Him and the things the Bible reveals about His character; that does not mean that I'm OK with everything the Bible contains; it means I have chosen to suspend judgment for the time being because I do not have command of all the facts - there is no way for any human being to know the level of information about people and their hearts that God knows. I do not justify His actions - He needs not my defense; but I do assume that a being I believe to be perfectly just and loving acts accordingly to those principles that the Bible claims Him to have. The Bible is the only authority we have when it comes to understanding God. As well, why would God include the "atrocities" in the Bible if they simply served to incriminate Him and turn people away? His willingness to share even such unattractive moments seems to speak to His honesty and openness - and perhaps suggests that He has nothing to hide nor fear about our observing of such terrible events.

We do judge people by what they do, you're right; but all courts of law seek to know motivation - and sometimes the motivation and intention mitigate the crime. The man who stole bread to save his child's life or the man who lies to the Nazi's at the door about the Jews in his cellar have both violated commandments - yet their motivation and intention makes clear that they have acted rightly. Actions only tell part of the story - and, unfortunately, the Bible often only gives us the action. If God chose not to share it, I will assume He has good reason not to.



Again, you're making wild unfounded excuses. If that were the case, why wouldn't the bible say so? And what about the Israelites he did kill before Moses talked him around? Is it okay to kill your kids friends to get a message through to your own kids?

No excuses being offered; I'm pointing out that your conclusions are simply one possibility; there are other possibilities that are equally as reasonable as you believe yours to be.

First, you seem to think that death is the greatest evil; for us, perhaps; for God, maybe not. Compared to the horror of separation from God, death could be seen as a mercy. Don't assume that those whom God allowed to be killed were innocent - you have no way of knowing such information; more than likely, you simply assume the worst because you don't like God and are seeking any "evidence" to hold against Him because He doesn't confrom to your idea of who He sould be.



You're right, what was I thinking? God says he's loving, merciful and all-knowing, so I should just take him on his word and ignore all the genocide he commits.

More sarcasm. In the kind of scholarly debates I'm used to, this stuff is totally worthless.

You don't need to take God at His word - I do. You are free to ignore what He claims and place yourself in the judgment seat. But doing so (as you have done) simply reveals that you don't really even believe in God (at least how the Bible describes Him). Seriously; who would place themselves in judgment over a being who creates universes for fun? Who would mock an entity who can assemble the human body out of clay, breathe in it and bring it to life?

The Bible was not written to answer all our questions or correct all social ills; its job is to reveal God to believers - period. Everything else is secondary to that - including providing sufficient evidence so that doubters would be satisfied (but doubters don't really want to be satisfied - so no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient anyway).

And - it is not only God who tells us He's merciful, loving, etc - it is the people who wrote the Bible, testifying of their knowledge of God through His presence in their lives.



I'm not being selective with my evidence. In a court, if a murderer says he's innocent, is that even evidence? No. Is his diary, which lists all the murders he did? Yes. What God says isn't evidence at all. There's no reason to believe he's telling the truth, especially when his actions contradict him so much.

Clever, but not convincing. Not only does God claim He's good - He proves it numerous times throughout the Bible - but most clearly, in the example that all disbelievers ignore, God sent Jesus Christ to redeem all of humanity and extend the gift of salvation and eternal life to ALL. Jesus Christ was a sinless, perfect man (who was also at the same time God); He was completely innocent but sacrificed his life to pay the debt of death that all of us owe by nature of sin. All of us (yep, even you, my friend) are free of the death sentence laid upon us by sin because of Christ's sacrifice - and that is the ultimate proof that God is good; yes there are terrible things in the OT, but Christ's sacrifce balances out the scales for all who have ever lived and sinned in this world.

And again, as I pointed out above, actions do not always speak for themselves.

And, I made it clear that in a court of law, it is common to call forward "character witnesses" to testify to the defendant's character - so that the judge may see that the individual may warrant consideration in how the jury decides. The Bible contains enough evidence about the goodness of God's character that He is far from condemned by the OT episodes you choose to focus on.


I don't care how much those cultures mocked God. There is no excuse for genocide. If someone mocks you, is it okay to kill them? Of course not. Let alone their whole people. Did the babies that drowned in the great flood mock him? Did the children of Egypt who were killed by his plagues mock him?

You're pretty big on the genocide term, eh? What I can't take the time to go deeply into is the nature of sin; we only think about this life, but God thinks about eternity; for Him, there is nothing more important than the state of your soul - not even your life is as important to God as your future fate; that said, God sometimes takes extreme action. Again: you are not in command of all the facts; you do not understand sin as God does, and you assume that the death of these people was the worst thing that could happen to them; perhaps in God's mind, there are worse things; perhaps - perhaps His action stopped them from going into someplace even worse. How are we to know?

The plagues were Pharoh's choice. God never sent one against Pharoh's will. How about some blame for the head guy who kept challenging God even after 2-3 pretty impressive demonstrations of power? Why isn't HE held responsible for what his decisions brought upon his people?



Again, there is no logic in your assumption. Where is the evidence that he's so nice and great? Only in his words. If we assume he's capable of lying, and judge him by his actions, your assumption about his character falls to pieces. Saying you're a nice person doesn't make you one.

Here's what I find really illogical: people claim that God is a liar, a tyrant, a murderer, etc - and yet such a God would have no logical reason to allow those who challenge, attack, and mock Him to live. Earthly tyrants do not suffer such behaviors, why should God? The fact that you and others are free to continue to speak as you do is evidence of God's love - because only a fair and just God would allow His creatures to mock, disrespect, and reject Him and continue to sustain their lives. How is it logical to paint God a tyrant and then continue to exist? Why should a lying dictator allow you to continue to challenge Him? The Bible's claims of God's goodness explain why those who sin are still here on earth and blessed just as are the believers.


You've left unadressed the fact that he didn't know there were nice people in Sodom.

I addressed that. Re-read my post.



I've covered most of this before, but I'll ask specifically: what is the evidence that God is nice? And I want examples of his actions, the things he and others say don't count.

"Nice" isn't a word I would choose to describe God; "nice" is bland and an overrated quality in this world. You can be "nice" and still be a terrible person. I've heard Ted Bundy was quite charming in conversation before he raped and killed.

The primary example of God's goodness is again Christ's sacrifice; as part of the Holy Trinity, Christ was God; as such, God sacrifices himself to redeem fallen humanity. He did not have to do that - because of His great love for the people He created, He sacrifced himself to offer eternal life to us all. There is no greater example.

There are countless examples of God rescuing those who followed Him, forgiving those who sinned against Him, bringing justice to the oppressed. He rescued His people from persecution; through Christ's ministry on earth, countless people were healed, forgiven, given a second chance and offered changed lives for the better. He fed those who were hungry, avenged those who were wrong, cared for those in need. The Bible is full of this stuff - but even if I quoted text after text, I'm well aware it wouldn't do any good. Like myself, you have begun from a certain philosophical position and built your case upon it. My fundamental position is that God is good; yours is that He is not. Neither of us will convince the other of his/her rightness. You fancy yourself "open-minded," but in reality, you are as embedded in your position as I am in mine. There is no amount of "evidence" that could change your mind. You are as determined to see God as a bad guy as I am to see Him as good. Don't flatter yourself that you're more "objective" than I am - an objective reading of the Bible would consider the good and the bad; you're only considering the bad.



The bible is a book specifically written to convince me he's great and I should worship him. If even his own book presents him as a murderous, egotistical maniac, what does that say about him?

The Bible was not written to convince you of anything; it exists to reveal God to those who wish to know Him; for those who don't wish to know Him, reading it will offer them little of value. You have chosen your interpretation; fair enough - but don't kid yourself that your interpretation is authoritative, or even fair - and it certainly isn't unbiased and objective. Nobody approaches the Bible with such a position except perhaps a child. You are not in command of all the facts, yet you have decided to render judgment. OK - but you have sentenced God on things that you only partially understand, and only partially see.


You rather wasted your time writing all this, you could have just said 'God must be great, he says so himself, so just ignore or excuse all the atrocities he commits.'
I suggest you drop your assumptions and judge God by what he does, not what he says. Even when he's 'saving us' it requires the torture and murder of his own son.

Your absurd simplification of my posting says much about your attitude and your willingess to listen to opposing viewpoints. I took my time in responding to show respect to your objections. Nothing I have said even remotely resembles the ridiculous dogmatism you have accused me of spouting.

You may suggest all you like - what on earth gives your suggestions any power or authority that I should take them seriously?

God has rescued us from sin - sin leads to death. That is not God's decision - that is a reality of existence. All that is not God is death. To sin is to choose death. Because we inherited sin from the fall of Adam and Eve, we all were basically born with a death sentence from which there was no escape. God offered that escape through Jesus. Reading the Bible more carefully and with a more open mind might have made that clearer to you. Trust me: it is not a book you can lightly read and fully understand; as well, if you try to read it with mind to tear it apart, it will only frustrate you and reveal nothing of value.

[Sam?]

I understand it quite well, thank you. There is also evidence of the same sort that corroborates people and places in the Bible. What I am speaking of is the fact that we rely upon the testimony of others as to what happened in the distant (and even not-so-distant) past; we even rely upon others to interpret these ruins and writings - and we assume we're being told the truth -why?

I do not call the Bible "evidence" of anything; it is a narrative that claims to reveal the character of God; as a bonus, outside historical sources and archeological finds confirm much of what it says.

Your sarcasm does little by way of keeping this an intelligent discussion - why is it that I find so many agnostics/atheists/doubters/whatever are so prone to nasty tones towards Christians in these discussions?

There is no such thing as "objectivity" when it comes to God, sorry. CS Lewis once pointed out that there were generally three responses to Christ while he was here on earth: people either a) adored him, b) hated him, or c) were terrified of him; whatever he inspired, it was never apathy. I think God is the same way.

Either way, I assume that God has right and just reasons for what He does based upon my relationship with Him and the things the Bible reveals about His character; that does not mean that I'm OK with everything the Bible contains; it means I have chosen to suspend judgment for the time being because I do not have command of all the facts - there is no way for any human being to know the level of information about people and their hearts that God knows. I do not justify His actions - He needs not my defense; but I do assume that a being I believe to be perfectly just and loving acts accordingly to those principles that the Bible claims Him to have. The Bible is the only authority we have when it comes to understanding God. As well, why would God include the "atrocities" in the Bible if they simply served to incriminate Him and turn people away? His willingness to share even such unattractive moments seems to speak to His honesty and openness - and perhaps suggests that He has nothing to hide nor fear about our observing of such terrible events.

We do judge people by what they do, you're right; but all courts of law seek to know motivation - and sometimes the motivation and intention mitigate the crime. The man who stole bread to save his child's life or the man who lies to the Nazi's at the door about the Jews in his cellar have both violated commandments - yet their motivation and intention makes clear that they have acted rightly. Actions only tell part of the story - and, unfortunately, the Bible often only gives us the action. If God chose not to share it, I will assume He has good reason not to.

No excuses being offered; I'm pointing out that your conclusions are simply one possibility; there are other possibilities that are equally as reasonable as you believe yours to be.

Again, you're just refusing to question your beliefs. You have your assumptions, and you ignore anything that contradicts them, assuming without basis that God must have had a great reason for every horrible act he commited. There's no point me trying to argue this.


First, you seem to think that death is the greatest evil; for us, perhaps; for God, maybe not. Compared to the horror of separation from God, death could be seen as a mercy. Don't assume that those whom God allowed to be killed were innocent - you have no way of knowing such information; more than likely, you simply assume the worst because you don't like God and are seeking any "evidence" to hold against Him because He doesn't confrom to your idea of who He sould be.

Likewise, don't assume God was in the right, don't assume etc. And are you suggesting all the babies and children killed by the flood deserved to die? The babies of Sodom? The babies of Egypt? I'm sure there were bad people, but I'm sure there were good and innocent people too.
Plus, how could it have been a mercy for all of those people to go to Hell? Are you suggesting he let the rules slide for them and let them into heaven? Either he killed sinners, who went to Hell, or he killed innocents.


More sarcasm. In the kind of scholarly debates I'm used to, this stuff is totally worthless.

You don't need to take God at His word - I do. You are free to ignore what He claims and place yourself in the judgment seat. But doing so (as you have done) simply reveals that you don't really even believe in God (at least how the Bible describes Him). Seriously; who would place themselves in judgment over a being who creates universes for fun? Who would mock an entity who can assemble the human body out of clay, breathe in it and bring it to life?

No, I indeed don't believe in God. But even if there were, I don't see how he must be infallible. Why is it so hard to concieve of a God capable of making mistakes. The ability to create doesn't make one perfect.


The Bible was not written to answer all our questions or correct all social ills; its job is to reveal God to believers - period. Everything else is secondary to that - including providing sufficient evidence so that doubters would be satisfied (but doubters don't really want to be satisfied - so no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient anyway).

And - it is not only God who tells us He's merciful, loving, etc - it is the people who wrote the Bible, testifying of their knowledge of God through His presence in their lives.

No testemonial could absolve Hitler of his guilt, and the atrocities God commits in the bible are a thousand times worse than anything Hitler ever did.
If the bible's job is to reveal God, then by not providing evidence, it fails, because there are millions of people like me unwilling to take its claims at face value, and by withholding evidence, it's condeming us to Hell.


Clever, but not convincing. Not only does God claim He's good - He proves it numerous times throughout the Bible - but most clearly, in the example that all disbelievers ignore, God sent Jesus Christ to redeem all of humanity and extend the gift of salvation and eternal life to ALL. Jesus Christ was a sinless, perfect man (who was also at the same time God); He was completely innocent but sacrificed his life to pay the debt of death that all of us owe by nature of sin. All of us (yep, even you, my friend) are free of the death sentence laid upon us by sin because of Christ's sacrifice - and that is the ultimate proof that God is good; yes there are terrible things in the OT, but Christ's sacrifce balances out the scales for all who have ever lived and sinned in this world.

He's God, he could have just forgiven us (unless he's not as omnipotent as he says), instead he decides someone, be it him or his son, has to be tortured to death. Very loving. And he only had to do that because he decided we are responsible for the sins of two people we've never met in the first place. Locking someone innocent up and then breaking them out by torturing your son to death isn't a great heroic act, it's cleaning up your own mess.


And again, as I pointed out above, actions do not always speak for themselves.

And, I made it clear that in a court of law, it is common to call forward "character witnesses" to testify to the defendant's character - so that the judge may see that the individual may warrant consideration in how the jury decides. The Bible contains enough evidence about the goodness of God's character that He is far from condemned by the OT episodes you choose to focus on.

So list it. Besides Jesus, what has he done to even cancel out murdering everyone in the world with a flood?


You're pretty big on the genocide term, eh? What I can't take the time to go deeply into is the nature of sin; we only think about this life, but God thinks about eternity; for Him, there is nothing more important than the state of your soul - not even your life is as important to God as your future fate; that said, God sometimes takes extreme action. Again: you are not in command of all the facts; you do not understand sin as God does, and you assume that the death of these people was the worst thing that could happen to them; perhaps in God's mind, there are worse things; perhaps - perhaps His action stopped them from going into someplace even worse. How are we to know?

I've already covered this. If he murdered everyone in the world/sodom etc because they were sinners, then they went to Hell. I think I'd rather live in a world full of sinners than in Hell, how about you?



The plagues were Pharoh's choice. God never sent one against Pharoh's will. How about some blame for the head guy who kept challenging God even after 2-3 pretty impressive demonstrations of power? Why isn't HE held responsible for what his decisions brought upon his people?

The bible specifically says God made the pharoah keep challenging him (harden his heart). The pharoah didn't have a choice. In any case, I see no reason why God had to punish all the Egyptian people. I don't blame the average American for the actions of George Bush, and if I could convict him of war crimes, I wouldn't lock them up as well.


Here's what I find really illogical: people claim that God is a liar, a tyrant, a murderer, etc - and yet such a God would have no logical reason to allow those who challenge, attack, and mock Him to live. Earthly tyrants do not suffer such behaviors, why should God? The fact that you and others are free to continue to speak as you do is evidence of God's love - because only a fair and just God would allow His creatures to mock, disrespect, and reject Him and continue to sustain their lives. How is it logical to paint God a tyrant and then continue to exist? Why should a lying dictator allow you to continue to challenge Him? The Bible's claims of God's goodness explain why those who sin are still here on earth and blessed just as are the believers.

Here's a logical explanation: God doesn't exist. He is an imaginary construct that changed with time to fit the expectations of his believers. Once people wanted a tough, all powerful God who murdered and punished their enemies, now people want an all loving God who cares about them.


I addressed that. Re-read my post.

"Nice" isn't a word I would choose to describe God; "nice" is bland and an overrated quality in this world. You can be "nice" and still be a terrible person. I've heard Ted Bundy was quite charming in conversation before he raped and killed.

The primary example of God's goodness is again Christ's sacrifice; as part of the Holy Trinity, Christ was God; as such, God sacrifices himself to redeem fallen humanity. He did not have to do that - because of His great love for the people He created, He sacrifced himself to offer eternal life to us all. There is no greater example.

Again, there was no need for anyone to be sacrificed. He could have just forgiven us, or not blamed us for something we didn't do in the first place.


There are countless examples of God rescuing those who followed Him, forgiving those who sinned against Him, bringing justice to the oppressed. He rescued His people from persecution; through Christ's ministry on earth, countless people were healed, forgiven, given a second chance and offered changed lives for the better. He fed those who were hungry, avenged those who were wrong, cared for those in need. The Bible is full of this stuff - but even if I quoted text after text, I'm well aware it wouldn't do any good. Like myself, you have begun from a certain philosophical position and built your case upon it. My fundamental position is that God is good; yours is that He is not. Neither of us will convince the other of his/her rightness. You fancy yourself "open-minded," but in reality, you are as embedded in your position as I am in mine. There is no amount of "evidence" that could change your mind. You are as determined to see God as a bad guy as I am to see Him as good. Don't flatter yourself that you're more "objective" than I am - an objective reading of the Bible would consider the good and the bad; you're only considering the bad.

Healing a leper doesn't really compare with murdering all life on earth.
And actually, despite yet another of your assumptions, I began reading the bible only with the belief that God doesn't exist. I had no idea he'd be the bloodthirsty megalomaniac that he turned out to be. I really didn't. Given everything I'd always heard, I thought he'd be the loving benevolent creator you see him as. Non existent, yes, but caring and compassionate. My present view was formed through reading the bible, nothing else.


The Bible was not written to convince you of anything; it exists to reveal God to those who wish to know Him; for those who don't wish to know Him, reading it will offer them little of value. You have chosen your interpretation; fair enough - but don't kid yourself that your interpretation is authoritative, or even fair - and it certainly isn't unbiased and objective. Nobody approaches the Bible with such a position except perhaps a child. You are not in command of all the facts, yet you have decided to render judgment. OK - but you have sentenced God on things that you only partially understand, and only partially see.

He chose the evidence to present to me. If there was more, I'd look at it as well. If the evidence available paints him in a bad light, that is hardly my fault, is it? What can I do but base my opinion on what he supposedly provided? What reason do I have to assume there are lots of nice explanations?


Your absurd simplification of my posting says much about your attitude and your willingess to listen to opposing viewpoints. I took my time in responding to show respect to your objections. Nothing I have said even remotely resembles the ridiculous dogmatism you have accused me of spouting.

You may suggest all you like - what on earth gives your suggestions any power or authority that I should take them seriously?

Right back at you chief.


God has rescued us from sin - sin leads to death. That is not God's decision - that is a reality of existence. All that is not God is death. To sin is to choose death. Because we inherited sin from the fall of Adam and Eve, we all were basically born with a death sentence from which there was no escape. God offered that escape through Jesus. Reading the Bible more carefully and with a more open mind might have made that clearer to you. Trust me: it is not a book you can lightly read and fully understand; as well, if you try to read it with mind to tear it apart, it will only frustrate you and reveal nothing of value.

If God is omnipotent and created reality and existence, how can that not be God's decision? If we inherit the original sin, that is because God decided we would. He could just as easily have decided we inherit the good deeds of our ancestors.

[Drkshadow03]

No, I indeed don't believe in God . . .No testemonial could absolve Hitler of his guilt, and the atrocities God commits in the bible are a thousand times worse than anything Hitler ever did.


So you just compared an actual atrocity in human history that I assume you actually believed happened to atrocities in a book you believe to be made up. Gee, that's not at all offensive. Then you have the gall to whine about the horrible immoral unethical religious people.

Also, you keep claiming the Bible doesn't show enough evidence for G-d. I'm wondering what sort of evidence are you looking for exactly ?

[Jozanny]

Also, you keep claiming the Bible doesn't show enough evidence for G-d. I'm wondering what sort of evidence are you looking for exactly ?

The stories in Genesis and Exodus describe a character, whom I was taught was named Yahweh--in characterization, Yahweh comes off as insecure and in need of attention. He wants sacrifices in his name. Cattle cannot be deified. Why? How is a golden Baal a threat to this omnipotent being who has a covenant with one group of people?

It's just a material representation of an animal which was then and is now important to human survival.

I've said elsewhere and I'll say it here: Yahweh is much closer in portrayal to a comic book superhero than he is to any linguistic concept of a one god which simply is what it is for all eternity, and because Yahweh is a character portrayed by human authors who were limited to reaching for grandiose comparisons, this is not evidence of his unnamable divinity.

Now, if I said, Yo, big daddy, I have suffered with my disease enough for 46 years, let me get up and walk tomorrow totally cured, and he did it, and my body was perfect, then okay Drk, maybe I am wrong and your big daddy deserves my slavering abasement.

Until then, I think quarks are more interesting.

[Redzeppelin]

Again, you're just refusing to question your beliefs. You have your assumptions, and you ignore anything that contradicts them, assuming without basis that God must have had a great reason for every horrible act he commited. There's no point me trying to argue this.

You know nothing about me. You have no idea the road I've traveled to arrive at my current position. I know what it means to question God, to wonder if He's real, and to live as if He's not. You ignore the possiblity that I have questioned my beliefs and they proved to be more solid than I thought. C.S. Lewis, Christianity's foremost apologist, was a hardcore atheist before he realized he was wrong. Some Christians find their beliefs the hard way.


Likewise, don't assume God was in the right, don't assume etc. And are you suggesting all the babies and children killed by the flood deserved to die? The babies of Sodom? The babies of Egypt? I'm sure there were bad people, but I'm sure there were good and innocent people too.

It is perfectly logical to make assumptions based on reasonable evidence. From the Bible, from the lives of those close to me, and from my own life, I know God is good. I also know He has done things that trouble me deeply - and as I said before, I suspend judgment because I am aware that God knows things I do not. When all is said and done, God will make clear to all - believer and nonbelievers alike - His reasons for what He did and all will agree He was just.

Let me give you a silly example that you may more than likely scoff at. Today I was out back spraying my stucco fence and a baby lizard ran up the wall and into the path of my sprayer. The thing got covered in paint. I don't know if latex paint is bad for lizards, but I felt bad for the little guy. So, I caught him and took him over to a dish of water, submerged him in it to get him wet, and rubbed the paint off of him. I'm pretty sure the lizard did not enjoy any of the experience, and - if it was capable of thought, most assuredly would have thought his life was over. He had no way of knowing that I was trying to help him.
In a very small and incomplete way, I sometimes think that that is how things are between us and God. Like a lizard, we have such a limited view of reality that we sometimes cannot comprehend what is happening to us - and there are often things that we think terrible that - if we had God's larger perspective - we might understand better. I know that that analogy doesn't compare to "genocide," but it does provide and example of why I think your conclusions are premature - our perspectives are too narrow to take on God. We simply don't know enough.

Back to your questions: I didn't say babies and innocent people deserved to die; that is you making a straw man argument; I said I believe that God has a good reason to act as He does, and this belief is based on what the Bible tells me about His character. Your arguments are consistently based on the idea that God is an unfair judge - but what proof do you have that He is, beyond the fact that He did some things that you believe (with your limited knowledge) to be unjust? What exactly do you know about the people God condemned? What do you know of their hearts, the role of sin in their lives, and the level to which they may have turned from God? You challenge God's prerogative to judge, yet have no problem putting yourself on the bench - but what qualifies you to judge God?

Exactly what makes you "sure" there were innocent people amongst the dead? Do you have a source for this belief - or do you just "feel" like it? Serious charges demand compelling evidence.


Plus, how could it have been a mercy for all of those people to go to Hell? Are you suggesting he let the rules slide for them and let them into heaven? Either he killed sinners, who went to Hell, or he killed innocents.

I prefer to believe God allowed sinners to die. Letting innocents die, however, may be a blessing in that they are spared something worse to come. We just don't know enough to assume otherwise. Would you say a Jewish man who got his by a car the day before the Nazi roundup was a lucky guy? Many of those who went to the camps might say "yes."



No, I indeed don't believe in God. But even if there were, I don't see how he must be infallible. Why is it so hard to concieve of a God capable of making mistakes. The ability to create doesn't make one perfect.

You know what I find fascinating? That people will go to great lengths to argue about something that doesn't exist only when that something is God. Nobody gets bent out of shape about unicorns, vampires, etc and couldn't be bothered to argue with those who believe in them - but God is special, isn't He?

You've verified the point I made: those who don't believe in God will obviously take issue with His actions because they are already predisposed to be looking for objectionable things. Like I said (and you've just proven): nobody is really objective about God. The choice to not believe is a conscious rejection of God. You're free to do so, but don't kid yourself that that choice makes you any more objective or clear-minded than I. You've chosen your world view, I've chosen mine.



No testemonial could absolve Hitler of his guilt, and the atrocities God commits in the bible are a thousand times worse than anything Hitler ever did.
If the bible's job is to reveal God, then by not providing evidence, it fails, because there are millions of people like me unwilling to take its claims at face value, and by withholding evidence, it's condeming us to Hell.

You cannot compare Hitler to God; Hitler was an imbalanced and mentally ill man, a fallen sinner with evil intent; God is the perfect judge and loving redeemer of mankind. There is no comparison you can make - and again: you assume that the peoples that God put under judgment were innocent people - you have no proof of that beyond assumption.




He's God, he could have just forgiven us (unless he's not as omnipotent as he says), instead he decides someone, be it him or his son, has to be tortured to death. Very loving. And he only had to do that because he decided we are responsible for the sins of two people we've never met in the first place. Locking someone innocent up and then breaking them out by torturing your son to death isn't a great heroic act, it's cleaning up your own mess.

Nope; because "just forgiving" everybody creates the kind of God you accuse God of being: unfair. Do you think Hitler (since you brought him up) out to be "just forgiven" for his crimes? Should a serial rapist just "be forgiven" for his crimes? A just God must hold people accountable - sin has a price - a price that God did not make. You assume that sin is something God created - so therefore, any "rules" about it can be bent; wrong: sin is that which is contrary to God - all that is not God is sin and death. If you choose (using your freewill) to turn from God, you will die - not because God will kill you, but because you have rejected the source of all Life in the universe - just as you would die if you didn't eat or drink. Granted, that death doesn't happen immediately, because God extends His grace to those who reject Him; but, at some point, time will run out and God will allow you to make the final choice to reject Him once and for all - and at that point, you will face whatever lies at the opposite end of the heavenly afterlife. A loving God must be a just God - sin can't just be swept away. Christ took the penalty which allows all of us to be forgiven.




So list it. Besides Jesus, what has he done to even cancel out murdering everyone in the world with a flood?

I'll pass on the list; I've done so for nonbelievers in the past and realized that they're by-and-large just looking for a fight; I'm not interested in putting that much effort into something so you can simply dismiss it; sorry.




I've already covered this. If he murdered everyone in the world/sodom etc because they were sinners, then they went to Hell. I think I'd rather live in a world full of sinners than in Hell, how about you?

Does the Bible say that those in Sodom went to Hell? I don't know what God intends to do about such cases - but again, you assume there were good people there - and you do so without any proof beyond your feelings.



The bible specifically says God made the pharoah keep challenging him (harden his heart). The pharoah didn't have a choice. In any case, I see no reason why God had to punish all the Egyptian people. I don't blame the average American for the actions of George Bush, and if I could convict him of war crimes, I wouldn't lock them up as well.

Many scholars suggest that verb "hardened" in the phrase "God hardened Pharoah's heart" is not God actively "hardening" Pharoah's heart, but more that God's conviction hardened Pharoah's heart. Here's a similar sentence: The sun hardened the clay. In this sentence, the sun didn't actively so anything but shine; but, its heat combined with the elemental/chemical makeup of clay, resulted in it hardening, just as other materials placed in the sun will have a different reaction and soften (like ice cream). Pharoah's heart, being what it was, naturally hardened when convicted by God. Pharoah had his choice. God may have known the effect of His conviction on Pharoah's heart, but He did not make Pharoah do anything against His will; that's not God's style.

Of course YOU don't see any reason to punish all the Egyptian people - you weren't there and you know the tiniest degree of the spiritual aspedt of the culture during this time period (the aspect that God cares most about), the condition of the peoples' hearts, the level of sin in their society, etc, etc, etc. You're basing your objections on a) your dislike of God, b) your assumption of innocence in ancient peoples that God laid judgment on, and c) your belief that God is as self-serving and unjust as a human.




Here's a logical explanation: God doesn't exist. He is an imaginary construct that changed with time to fit the expectations of his believers. Once people wanted a tough, all powerful God who murdered and punished their enemies, now people want an all loving God who cares about them.

Nah. God is the only logical explanation for the existence of the universe, the moral code hardwired into humans, and the solution for human suffering; God is the answer for the human longing that nothing on this earth ever quite satisfies.



Again, there was no need for anyone to be sacrificed. He could have just forgiven us, or not blamed us for something we didn't do in the first place.

Already covered. You desire God to be fair in dealing with sinful, heathen peoples, but you then turn around and then ask Him to be unfair in terms of justice. Huh?




Healing a leper doesn't really compare with murdering all life on earth.
And actually, despite yet another of your assumptions, I began reading the bible only with the belief that God doesn't exist. I had no idea he'd be the bloodthirsty megalomaniac that he turned out to be. I really didn't. Given everything I'd always heard, I thought he'd be the loving benevolent creator you see him as. Non existent, yes, but caring and compassionate. My present view was formed through reading the bible, nothing else.

Reading the Bible with zero belief in God is the equivalent of deciding that Shakespeare is gay and then reading his plays/sonnets: you will find what you're looking for.



He chose the evidence to present to me. If there was more, I'd look at it as well. If the evidence available paints him in a bad light, that is hardly my fault, is it? What can I do but base my opinion on what he supposedly provided? What reason do I have to assume there are lots of nice explanations?

The evidence "paints" God according to your relationship to Him; for those of us who love Him and have a relationship with Him, we read the Bible differently than those who hate Him and desire to attack/judge Him. God is not in the least worried that you're bothered by His actions any more than a parent is bothered that his 3-year-old thinks he's mean because he couldn't have candy for dinner. The kid doesn't understand the larger picture, and nonbelievers only "see" God through a very narrow crack.




Right back at you chief.

Except that I don't recall every suggesting what you should do. Care to show me where I did so?




If God is omnipotent and created reality and existence, how can that not be God's decision? If we inherit the original sin, that is because God decided we would. He could just as easily have decided we inherit the good deeds of our ancestors.

As I said: God did not choose to bring sin into this world. For freewill to exist, the choice to reject God must be an option; but, since God is the source of Life, choosing otherwise means choosing death. I'd go on, but your admission of nonbelief in God makes what I've already written probably way more than necessary, because we're not really having a discussion - you're just arguing against God and I'm explaining that your view is only one possibility; there are others - whether you wish to conceed so or not.

[Jozanny]

Many scholars suggest that verb "hardened" in the phrase "God hardened Pharoah's heart" is not God actively "hardening" Pharoah's heart, but more that God's conviction hardened Pharoah's heart. Here's a similar sentence: The sun hardened the clay. In this sentence, the sun didn't actively so anything but shine; but, its heat combined with the elemental/chemical makeup of clay, resulted in it hardening, just as other materials placed in the sun will have a different reaction and soften (like ice cream). Pharoah's heart, being what it was, naturally hardened when convicted by God. Pharoah had his choice. God may have known the effect of His conviction on Pharoah's heart, but He did not make Pharoah do anything against His will; that's not God's style.

Nah. God is the only logical explanation for the existence of the universe, the moral code hardwired into humans, and the solution for human suffering; God is the answer for the human longing that nothing on this earth ever quite satisfies.

There is no, I repeat, no archeological evidence for Israeli captivity in Egypt, and your last paragraph merely asserts your belief in the First Cause, which isn't feasible as a logical argument.

Atheists don't have all the answers. They never claimed to. They are simply smart enough to see narrative mellodrama for what it is. Now, science can be mellodramatic, but science is always open to changes in understanding and revising its explanations. Monotheists are stuck with a theology centuries old chock full of nonsensical prescriptions, and that is all doctrine is. Prescription.

Homosexuality is an abonimation in the Hebraic worldview. You would not last long in Western culture throwing that assertion around today.

I think it is also important to remember that religions are human constructs, and that is what makes them fallible. The problem with doctrine is that not all doctrine can be correct. If Protestants are right then that leaves a whole lot of people on the outside, and evangelicals have no problem with this. The elect fly up to god and the rest of us get to play Apocalypse, the Movie! If Jews are right and the Messiah is still to come then whoa, what happens to the carpenter who is Incarnate? If Muslims are right then heaven involves vestal virgins?

This is really why we need to think about new systems, seriously, like taking a new look at eastern religions.

As for God being the answer to human longing, I doubt it. Spiritual hysteria is very close in terms of feelings to sexual need. What do orgasms do when they happen? Think about it, about how rare as a joy making love with the right partner is, what happens when we let the earth move and lose control in the act of procreation.

These *states* probably assisted in our biological development as a species, and shamen wasted no time capitalizing on them as social groups formed and became more sophisticated. The East capitalized on this spirituality in a much more harmonious fashion than the Semitic-bedouin culture did.

I do not think even believers deny that one God asserts power, as does Christ, ultimately, though Christianity at first was about leveling the playing field. All were children of god. It broke open the closed system of the chosen--but even Jesus is ultimately about power, which is why humans have been able to abuse Christianity to their own ends.

[Drkshadow03]

The stories in Genesis and Exodus describe a character, whom I was taught was named Yahweh--in characterization, Yahweh comes off as insecure and in need of attention. He wants sacrifices in his name. Cattle cannot be deified. Why? How is a golden Baal a threat to this omnipotent being who has a covenant with one group of people?

It's just a material representation of an animal which was then and is now important to human survival.

I've said elsewhere and I'll say it here: Yahweh is much closer in portrayal to a comic book superhero than he is to any linguistic concept of a one god which simply is what it is for all eternity, and because Yahweh is a character portrayed by human authors who were limited to reaching for grandiose comparisons, this is not evidence of his unnamable divinity.

Now, if I said, Yo, big daddy, I have suffered with my disease enough for 46 years, let me get up and walk tomorrow totally cured, and he did it, and my body was perfect, then okay Drk, maybe I am wrong and your big daddy deserves my slavering abasement.

Until then, I think quarks are more interesting.

Well, Jozanny, I have no problem with you being an atheist. In fact, I have no problem with anyone being an atheist. Sam included. I'm not sure I've made that clear. Judaism for the most part has no proselytizing tradition; it's not my job to convert you, convince you, or save you.

As long as you're helping other people, not murdering others, and obeying the laws of the land, as far as I'm concerned you're doing G-d's work, whether you believe in Him or not.

I personally think G-d is more consistent than you seem to give credit in the Bible. I should also add I say that as an English major more than as a believing Jew.

I don't take the Bible to be the literal word of G-d. I believe rather the bible is a human written book that records man's experiences of G-d, thus it's divinely inspired, but not necessarily divenely written. I should point out those are two very different things. So even if one believed that G-d is depicted as inconsistent, there is plenty of room even within Theism on the grounds that different writers at different times had different experiences of G-d and different interpretations of those experiences based off how they could understand them and put them into human terms.

If I have any problem with atheists, however, it isn't that they disbelieve in the existence of G-d, it's there smug I'm smarter-than-thou attitude towards people who do. And anyone who doesn't think like I do must = ta stupidz!

[Jozanny]

I don't take the Bible to be the literal word of G-d. I believe rather the bible is a human written book that records man's experiences of G-d, thus it's divinely inspired, but not necessarily divenely written. I should point out those are two very different things. So even if one believed that G-d is depicted as inconsistent, there is plenty of room even within Theism on the grounds that different writers at different times had different experiences of G-d and different interpretations of those experiences based off how they could understand them and put them into human terms.

Fair enough, but from my viewpoint, Semitic Theism (and I will use that to include Judaism and Islam, because the only difference is Judaism is the foundation, and closed in the sense that it is ethnic-derivative, whereas Islam took that system and said anyone can join in) is static in terms of theological evolution.

Christianity, though I dislike it more, is in danger of losing any doctrinal meaning whatsoever--at least in the West. *God-is-love* doesn't mean much really. I can get as equally effusive over *Cat-is-love*.

I was an English Major too, so we do have something in common. Have you read Chefitz, out of curiosity? His books make me cry, quite moving, and he seems to have a firm hand on unifying themes in American Judaism. He is a bit soppy, but none the less intellectually interesting and emotionally gratifying.

[Redzeppelin]

Christianity, though I dislike it more, is in danger of losing any doctrinal meaning whatsoever--at least in the West. *God-is-love* doesn't mean much really. I can get as equally effusive over *Cat-is-love*.

Hmmm...most cats I know only love themselves. For the most part, their lives seem to be a tour de force of studied indifference to all that does not benefit them.

Might you care to explain why "God is love" has become meaningless? I'm curious.

[Jozanny]

Might you care to explain why "God is love" has become meaningless? I'm curious.

Because the word god is semantically meaningless, and love is a transitory feeling. No one feels it continuously. The only reason I really took a peek in the Religious Texts Forum is because a light went on in my head about Wittgenstein, Foucault, deconstruction, and language gaming theory, and my cerebral processes will either:

1. click and write a nice thesis I can send somewhere;
2. fail at this task
3. stroke out before I understand what I am driving at.

I don't really care what you believe or I believe. I want to publish a few successful papers as a writer before I get too old--but it is language, and primarily and only language, which informs upon faith, belief, lack of faith, and knowledge. Each of us use language as a source of enforcement for these arguments--which is why we all fail, because language breaks down on either end, for the believer and non-believer alike, for the creationist or Darwinist, and the process of it fascinates me--but this is probably my last post about it in any serious way.

For monotheism, strip away the triumphalist metaphors and you are left with a narrative that ultimately breaks down. No believer can tell me what comes next after salvation has been achieved.

For the non-believer, once we have all the possible explanations of mass and space and motion available, the narrative also breaks down and reaches epistemological failure, and actually, this post might be the start of a light essay on the topic for some of my favorite markets, so I am going to copy it in my hard drive.

Good luck with the continuing debate.

[dzebra]

love is a transitory feeling. No one feels it continuously.

I just wanted to pick out this one thing and declare that I don't believe love is a feeling or an emotion. Love is a tendency of someone to act for the benefit of the beloved, and maybe to feel elation in response to the beloved.

[Redzeppelin]

Because the word god is semantically meaningless, and love is a transitory feeling. No one feels it continuously. The only reason I really took a peek in the Religious Texts Forum is because a light went on in my head about Wittgenstein, Foucault, deconstruction, and language gaming theory, and my cerebral processes will either:

1. click and write a nice thesis I can send somewhere;
2. fail at this task
3. stroke out before I understand what I am driving at.

I don't really care what you believe or I believe. I want to publish a few successful papers as a writer before I get too old--but it is language, and primarily and only language, which informs upon faith, belief, lack of faith, and knowledge. Each of us use language as a source of enforcement for these arguments--which is why we all fail, because language breaks down on either end, for the believer and non-believer alike, for the creationist or Darwinist, and the process of it fascinates me--but this is probably my last post about it in any serious way.

For monotheism, strip away the triumphalist metaphors and you are left with a narrative that ultimately breaks down. No believer can tell me what comes next after salvation has been achieved.

For the non-believer, once we have all the possible explanations of mass and space and motion available, the narrative also breaks down and reaches epistemological failure, and actually, this post might be the start of a light essay on the topic for some of my favorite markets, so I am going to copy it in my hard drive.

Good luck with the continuing debate.

Two quick points:

1) Deconstruction "eats itself" because once you suggest that words have no inherent meaning, then the words used to lay out this theory become meaningless themselves - so why should deconstructionism be any truer than any other theory, since it seems to suggest that language cannot be trusted and ultimately breaks down?

2) Love is not a "feeling" - the "feeling" portion of love is the attraction/affection/infatuation component; "love" kicks in when that other stuff finally quiets down; love is a choice, above all else, to do what is best for the other person even when you don't feel like it. That, in a nutshell, is God in action: doing what is best for the other (even if the other cannot appreciate it).

[RichardHresko]

Hmmm...most cats I know only love themselves. For the most part, their lives seem to be a tour de force of studied indifference to all that does not benefit them.

Might you care to explain why "God is love" has become meaningless? I'm curious.

But Aristotle in Metaphysics proves God's one activity is contemplating himself. Therefore cats may very well be God...

[Redzeppelin]

But Aristotle in Metaphysics proves God's one activity is contemplating himself. Therefore cats may very well be God...

Well, yeah. But "comtemplating oneself" and "total self-absorption" are two different things. I think cats fall under the latter term.

[RichardHresko]

Well, yeah. But "comtemplating oneself" and "total self-absorption" are two different things. I think cats fall under the latter term.

Aristotle claimed that the ONLY activity of God is self-contemplation. I think you have thus proven God is a Cat. So much for the clue of reading the name backwards...

[Redzeppelin]

Aristotle claimed that the ONLY activity of God is self-contemplation. I think you have thus proven God is a Cat. So much for the clue of reading the name backwards...

Well, OK (which I guess I should be happy about because most of my disputants claim I never prove anything. So, I'll take what I can get :) ).

But - Aristotle also didn't believe in God the way the Bible presents Him. Aristotle's brilliance and logic simply led him to admit that something like God must exist to explain the universe and how it functions (in terms of the Metaphysics, cause-effect). Admitting that God must exist is very different from understanding Him and His character.

*Meow!*

[RichardHresko]

Well, OK (which I guess I should be happy about because most of my disputants claim I never prove anything. So, I'll take what I can get :) ).

But - Aristotle also didn't believe in God the way the Bible presents Him. Aristotle's brilliance and logic simply led him to admit that something like God must exist to explain the universe and how it functions (in terms of the Metaphysics, cause-effect). Admitting that God must exist is very different from understanding Him and His character.

*Meow!*

Of course. I could not help but enjoy a little fun over this. These topics are too serious not to joke about.

And my avatar had a thing or eighty to say about what Aristotle missed.

[DooRag]

Why try to make sense out of any religious text? They have been manipulated and changed as governments evolved.

Take out of them what you will, but remember they were created by, and have been continually changed by, men.

[Drkshadow03]

Why try to make sense out of any religious text? They have been manipulated and changed as governments evolved.

Take out of them what you will, but remember they were created by, and have been continually changed by, men.

How do you know the religious texts were manipulated by men if you haven't tried to make sense of them first? ;)

[RichardHresko]

Why try to make sense out of any religious text? They have been manipulated and changed as governments evolved.

Take out of them what you will, but remember they were created by, and have been continually changed by, men.

Care must be taken to avoid the extremes of unquestioning acceptance and complete scepticism since knowledge is impossible in either of those cases.

As Augustine pointed out, faith must precede any knowledge, but he never advocated blind obedience. See his Confessions on this point.

Faith is a precondition of any knowledge, not just religion. One can not learn anything beyond the particular instances one experiences if one has no faith in what others report.

[DooRag]

"Faith" is a word you are using rather liberally without giving any sort of context to. I could say that "clouds" are a precondition of any knowledge and make about as much sense as your last statement.

As far as the history goes, its been made pretty clear who changed the bible, and when, and why they changed it. The bible is the most ingenious political tool in the history of mankind, and I have read it, amongst several other religious texts. They all follow the exact same formula. So, either there are a bunch of gods copying each other, or they were written by men.

Which makes more sense?

Augustine of Hippo was a religious zealot that might have be slightly insane. I wouldn't lean to strongly on his texts.

Also, I want to apologize if I offend anyone. I believe that great wisdom can be gained from all religious texts. As a history guy, though, I'm just throwing in my two cents.

[togre]

As far as the history goes, its been made pretty clear who changed the bible, and when, and why they changed it. The bible is the most ingenious political tool in the history of mankind, and I have read it, amongst several other religious texts. They all follow the exact same formula. So, either there are a bunch of gods copying each other, or they were written by men.

As a history guy, though, I'm just throwing in my two cents.

I apologize for jumping in mid stream. But, as a "history guy" shouldn't you site reputable sources, not just your two cents?

I will repeat what I told you elsewhere:

Please site your sources. Manuscript evidence in quantities and of a quality unprecedented in any other work of antiquity exists for the Old and New Testament. Multiple witnesses from different regions, dating back to within a hundred years of the original autographs and of Christ himself not only exist, but are nearly unanimous with regards to spelling and grammar much less the actual teachings and statements and actions of Jesus. What reliable evidence do you have to support your vast claims? If you reject this preponderance of evidence, you are denying something with greater support than Cesar's Galic Wars, Homer's Odyssey and Plato's Republic. Do you reject those too?

Further more, you must have been very cursory in your reading of ancient religious texts. While, if one paints with a broad brush, there can be passing similarities [Creation--Enuma Elish, Flood--Gilgamesh] read them side by side. Which one sounds like a bedtime story, which one sounds like a historical record of an astounding event. This is true of the doctrines and teachings as well as of the accounts and language.

[DooRag]

When I say "history guy", I mean that I put more faith in writers like Jared Diamond, for example, who have shown that the broadest, most simple, and often least obvious explanation, is the correct one.

[RichardHresko]

"Faith" is a word you are using rather liberally without giving any sort of context to. I could say that "clouds" are a precondition of any knowledge and make about as much sense as your last statement.

As far as the history goes, its been made pretty clear who changed the bible, and when, and why they changed it. The bible is the most ingenious political tool in the history of mankind, and I have read it, amongst several other religious texts. They all follow the exact same formula. So, either there are a bunch of gods copying each other, or they were written by men.

Which makes more sense?

Augustine of Hippo was a religious zealot that might have be slightly insane. I wouldn't lean to strongly on his texts.

Also, I want to apologize if I offend anyone. I believe that great wisdom can be gained from all religious texts. As a history guy, though, I'm just throwing in my two cents.

Faith is the trust that one puts into the report of others. It is the precondition for knowledge since something as elementary as language itself depends on faith. A humorous example of what happens when that trust is misplaced is the scene in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" when the fiance is misled as to what a particular phrase in Greek means. Monty Python also did a bit with a Hungarian-English phrase book. I don't think that this definition of faith is anything much beyond the commonplace so I am unsure why it caused a problem.

That being said, I do not have faith in your claims about the corruption of texts and the reasons for them. When you provide some specific information I will be interested in evaluating it. But until that is done the rhetorical question you pose is moot.

The comments about Augustine are baseless as presented. Once again, I would be glad to discuss specifics, when they are provided.